jobs_logs

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly implies a read-only operation and notes legacy epoch millisecond acceptance, but omits details on auth requirements, rate limits, return format, or log retention. The behavioral traits disclosed are minimal but not misleading.

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, zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is compact yet informative. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for a read-only log retrieval operation. It explains the optional parameters and constraints. However, it does not describe the output format or any limitations like pagination or log retention period, which would enhance completeness.

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 100%, with 'description' fields already explaining each parameter. The description adds some context by stating 'use tail to cap entries' and 'since for an ISO-8601 lower bound', but this largely echoes the schema. No new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'recent runner logs for a managed job', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jobs_get' and 'get_function_logs' by specifying 'runner logs' rather than job metadata or function logs.

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 advises on using optional parameters 'tail' and 'since', but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'jobs_get' for job status, 'get_function_logs' for function logs). The context is clear but lacks when-not-to-use or exclusions.

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