get_training_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the source, the recency, and the active-run constraint, but it does not explain what happens for inactive runs, whether logs are combined, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the word 'Get.'

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every line earns its place, and the main behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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, the output schema exists to cover return values, and both parameters are described, the definition is largely complete. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance for edge cases such as querying a run that is no longer active.

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. It provides useful, if minimal, explanations for both parameters: run_id is 'the run to query' and last_n_lines is the 'number of most recent log lines to return.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema property names and types.

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 identifies the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: 'recent stdout/stderr output from an active training run.' It is more precise than just 'get logs' and helps distinguish this from metric/status/config tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 implies the primary use case: querying recent stdout/stderr logs for an active run. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_metrics or get_run_status, nor does it explain behavior for completed or unknown runs.

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