Get JS Deployment Logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets logs' and is for debugging, which is an obvious read operation. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, line limits, polling behavior with 'from_line', or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that could potentially return large log outputs.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the main purpose and a key use case. There is no wasted language or redundancy, and the most critical information ('Get logs... Use for debugging') is front-loaded.

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 (fetch logs), the 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the primary use case and identifies the target resource. However, it does not address potential nuances like the 'from_line' parameter for polling live logs, which could be important for full contextual understanding. Overall, it is adequate for a basic tool but leaves slight gaps.

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 four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as explaining the polling behavior of 'from_line' or the relationship between 'username', 'domain', and 'uuid'. The schema itself is adequate, so no compensation is needed, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get logs for a JavaScript deployment build.' The verb 'get' specifies the action, and 'JavaScript deployment build' identifies the exact resource. The phrase 'Use for debugging failed deployments' adds practical context and differentiates it from sibling log tools like hosting_nodejs_build_logs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context with 'Use for debugging failed deployments,' which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as noting that Node.js build logs should use a different tool. This is a minor gap, as the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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