get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API endpoint and the host-ops requirement, implying a read operation. However, it does not describe the return format, size limits, or potential side effects. The reference to 'Task 31' is an implementation detail that does not clarify behavior for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses bullet points for clarity. It is relatively concise, though the trailing 'wired in Task 31' is irrelevant and adds noise. Overall, the structure is efficient.

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 lacks critical context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without relying on external knowledge. It does not explain the return value structure, how 'instance' affects the request, or clarify the ambiguous '--enable-host-ops' requirement. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

While the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful context: it ties the 'lines' parameter to the API query string, and clarifies that 'database' and 'service' kinds have additional prerequisites. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 fetches a log snapshot for a Coolify resource, with a specific verb and resource type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_resource or get_deployments by focusing on logs, and further differentiates between application, database, and service kinds.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by explaining kind-specific behavior: applications use a REST API endpoint, while databases/services require --enable-host-ops. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the prerequisites are useful for selection.

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