hosting_showJsDeploymentLogs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as retrieving logs but fails to mention any potential side effects, rate limits, log truncation, or pagination. For a read operation, the minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and context. It contains no extraneous information and is front-loaded with the key action. Every word is earned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context for its purpose. However, it does not explain the return format or any limitations (e.g., log line count). With no output schema, the description could be more complete, but it minimally suffices.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (domain, fromLine, buildUuid). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'specified JavaScript application deployment.' According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves logs for a JavaScript application deployment for debugging failures. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'logs for a specified JavaScript application deployment' are specific, and the purpose is well-defined. Among siblings, it uniquely addresses log retrieval, distinguishing it from deployment and listing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'for debugging purposes in case of failure,' implying use when a deployment fails. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like hosting_listJsDeployments (which lists deployments but not logs). Usage guidance is implicit but could be clearer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.