get_pipeline_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals several non-obvious traits: empty until pod running, default 100-line limit, cursor-based incremental retrieval, and that full=true still imposes a size cap. Exact caps and authentication details are absent, but the disclosed behavior is substantially helpful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by dense, relevant behavioral details. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details are not required from the description. The description covers default behavior, pagination, empty-before-running semantics, and the full flag cap, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It could name the exact cap or route to sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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 explains cursor and full behavior in functional terms, which the bare schema does not. The request_id parameter is only implied by 'for a request,' but that is reasonable given the required schema field is self-explanatory.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read pipeline worker logs for a request.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_pipeline_service_log or get_pipeline_pod by scoping it to worker logs tied to a request.

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?

Provides clear practical context: logs are empty until the worker pod is running, the default is last 100 lines, and passing a cursor retrieves only new lines. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage pattern is clearly implied.

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