vro_workflow_run_logs_get_by_run_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the endpoint path — no mention of log volume, pagination, ordering, or truncation behavior for what is a potentially large log payload.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Find Workflow Run logs by run ID' / 'Retrieves the Workflow Run logs for the specific run ID'), so a third of the text is redundant filler.

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?

For a log-retrieval tool with no output schema and three undocumented filter parameters, the description should say what the response contains and how filters behave. It defers entirely to the schema and annotations, leaving the agent without enough to call it correctly with non-default parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is only 25%: runId is marked '(path)' and severity/localOnly/olderThan have no descriptions at all in either schema or description. The filtering parameters (severity, olderThan) materially change results yet the description never explains them, leaving a real gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves the Workflow Run logs for the specific run ID') and includes the HTTP route, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'vro_workflow_run_get_by_run_id', which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the closely-named sibling run-retrieval tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as a valid run ID having been obtained from 'vro_workflow_run_get_all'. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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