Get container logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'No side effects', and clarifies container resolution semantics. It does not mention error behavior or return format, but these are secondary for a log-fetching tool; the safety profile is well covered.

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 extremely concise (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the critical 'READ-ONLY' flag. Every sentence adds value: purpose, resolution, and side-effect disclosure. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers purpose, parameter semantics, and side-effect profile. The main gap is not mentioning the return format (e.g., whether logs are returned as a single string or an array of lines), but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already documents. It reinforces the container resolution method and the meaning of 'tail' as 'last N lines', but these are also present in the schema. This is a baseline 3 per the rubric.

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 action ('Fetch the last N lines of a container's logs') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_containers and restart_container by focusing on log retrieval. The 'READ-ONLY' and 'No side effects' qualifiers further differentiate it from mutating tools.

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 provides clear context: it is read-only, resolves containers by id-prefix or exact name, and fetches a configurable number of log lines. It does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of siblings or mention exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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