job_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details like case-insensitivity of the grep filter and the meaning of 'tail' lines, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior. As a read-only log tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and all key information. There is zero waste, and every clause 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 covers the core functionality effectively. An output schema exists, so not describing return structure is acceptable. It does not mention edge cases like invalid job IDs or very large logs, but these are secondary for such a straightforward tool.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description explains the purpose of 'tail' (number of lines) and 'grep' (case-insensitive substring) in context. It does not explicitly mention job_id, but its purpose is obvious from the tool's name, and the schema marks it as required. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Return'), identifies the resource ('job's simulation log'), and specifies the tail and grep behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like job_status and job_cancel by focusing on log content retrieval.

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 usage for inspecting recent log lines, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like job_status or results_* tools. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so it relies on the reader to infer the appropriate context.

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