get_job_logs

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

Beyond the read-only/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that entries include a category field, that pagination is supported, and that workload logs can be empty during queueing/starting phases. These operational details help the agent interpret results correctly without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the category detail earns its place, and the conditional routing is compact and clear.

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?

The description covers purpose, alternative routing, and relevant edge-case behavior, and an output schema exists to document return fields. The only missing context is more explicit pagination parameter details, but this is a minor gap given the schema and overall transparency.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only the 'paginated' concept, which implies limit/cursor semantics, but does not explain cursor format, limit defaults, or jobId requirements. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description leaves the pagination contract vague.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination ('Retrieve paginated job logs') that immediately identifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes log categories and mentions get_job_events as a separate concern, making it easy for an agent to differentiate from siblings.

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 gives an explicit conditional usage rule: if workload logs are empty while a job is queued/starting, call get_job_events instead. This directly tells the agent when to choose an alternative, which is ideal usage guidance.

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