Unraid API docker.logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds modest behavioral context with 'bounded timestamped', indicating that results are limited and time-filtered, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or rate limits. No contradiction exists.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

With three straightforward parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the definition is largely adequate for a safe read operation. However, the existence of near-duplicate sibling tools like 'unraid_get_docker_logs' creates potential selection ambiguity that the description does not resolve, and no usage guidance is provided. These gaps make it adequate but not complete.

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 compensate, but it only indirectly hints at parameter semantics through 'bounded' (tail) and 'timestamped' (since). It does not explain that 'id' identifies the Docker container or define how tail and since behave beyond what parameter names imply. Given the schema's clear constraints and self-explanatory param names, this is partial but not full compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('bounded timestamped logs from one Docker container'), making the tool's core function easily identifiable. It also distinguishes itself from list/system-log siblings by emphasizing single-container scoping and timestamp bounds. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'unraid_get_docker_logs', which keeps it from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'unraid_get_docker_logs' or 'unraid_v4371_query_docker_container'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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