danceflow_job_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: output is explicitly framed as untrusted data (a prompt-injection caution) and reads are declared bounded with a next_offset continuation token, neither of which appears in the annotations or schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the safety caveat, with the pagination instruction second. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values and next_offset need not be explained in prose. However, with three undocumented parameters and no sibling differentiation, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to page through logs correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. 'Bounded' loosely hints at limit, but the units of limit and offset (bytes vs lines), what offset is relative to, and the role of job_id are all unstated; next_offset referenced in the text is not even an input parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading bounded job output (logs). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as danceflow_job_status or danceflow_read_artifact, so an agent must infer which one yields log text.

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?

'follow next_offset for more' implies the pagination loop and when to call again, which is useful. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over danceflow_job_status, danceflow_list_jobs, or danceflow_read_artifact, so tool selection is left to inference.

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