jobs_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second covers parameter usage. No redundant information, well front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple log retrieval tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies the source (runner logs) and optional parameters. However, it does not mention log ordering (assumed ascending) or return format (likely list of strings). With no output schema, a bit more detail would be helpful.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter usage ('tail to cap entries', 'since for epoch lower bound') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. This is acceptable but not value-add.

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,' providing a specific action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_function_logs by specifying 'runner logs' for managed jobs.

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 practical guidance on using optional parameters (tail, since) but does not clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_function_logs for other log types). No explicit when-not or alternative tool naming.

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