get_deploy_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Return' and the 'most recent' scoping, which are important traits. However, it omits details about error behavior, auth requirements, or what happens when no logs exist, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then supplies the use case. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the core use case, the 'most recent' limitation, and the trigger scenario. Minor edge-case omissions are not critical given the low complexity.

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 0%, but the description's phrase 'for an app' implies that the single 'name' parameter refers to the app whose deployment log is needed. This provides essential semantic context that the schema's bare 'name' string lacks, compensating well for the low coverage.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('deployment log'), the scope ('most recent'), and the target ('for an app'). It distinguishes itself from sibling app management tools by focusing on log retrieval, making it unmistakable.

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 explicitly provides a when-to-use trigger: 'use when a build fails.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool serves the same log-retrieval purpose, so the guidance is clear.

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