Get bridge logs and cook errors

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: guaranteed walking of the operator tree, best-effort probe of textport/log DATs, and probe reporting which log sources are reachable. Consistent with annotations and no contradiction.

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?

Four dense sentences front-load purpose, then give behavior, use case, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Complete for a project-scope debugging read with good schema, annotations, and output schema. Explains guarantee vs best-effort, walk scope, and the probe return field; no significant gaps.

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 covers all three parameters with full descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. Description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the baseline schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: collects cook errors/warnings across the operator tree under `scope`, plus best-effort log DAT probe. Clearly distinguishes from narrower per-node error tools by project-wide scope and its guaranteed vs best-effort split.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a script or cook fails and you need more context than the immediate error string.' It also contrasts with needing a new REST endpoint, but it does not name sibling alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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