hosting_showJsDeploymentLogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve logs' without mentioning output format, pagination, size limits, or error handling (e.g., what if logs are empty or buildUuid invalid). The non-destructive nature is implied but not stated.

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, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. It front-loads the action ('Retrieve logs') and adds essential context ('for debugging purposes in case of failure') without any wasted words.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or behavior under edge cases. It sufficiently explains the purpose but could improve by stating what the output contains (e.g., lines of log text).

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 already describes all three parameters (domain, fromLine, buildUuid) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific JavaScript application deployment, with a clear purpose (debugging failure). It explicitly mentions the resource (logs, deployment) and verb (retrieve), differentiating from siblings like hosting_listJsDeployments (lists deployments) and hosting_deployJsApplication (deploys).

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 provides usage context: 'for debugging purposes in case of failure', guiding the agent to use this tool when a deployment fails. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the purpose is well-defined.

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