job_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool paginates by lines and consumes more tokens than job_status, which is useful operational context. It doesn't explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but 'trae' (fetches) strongly implies a non-mutating read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by cost/usage caveats. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition of schema information.

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 definition covers purpose, pagination, cost tradeoff, and sibling differentiation, which is enough for an agent to decide when to call it. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or ordering, but that is largely inferable for a log tool and no output schema is expected.

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 75%, and the description adds little about parameter semantics beyond saying the log is paginated by lines. The schema already documents from_end, limit_lines, and offset_lines, so the description doesn't need to repeat them; baseline 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 it retrieves a line-paginated portion of a job's full log, and it explicitly differentiates itself from job_status by referencing the 'tail de job_status' that isn't enough for diagnosis. The operation and resource are specific and 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only when job_status's tail is insufficient, and only when more detail is genuinely needed. It also warns against default use by noting higher token consumption, effectively specifying when-not-to-use.

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