docker_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It does not state whether logs are streamed or returned as a snapshot, what happens if the container is not found, or the format of the output. The single sentence omits critical behavioral details that an agent needs to invoke the tool safely.

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 (7 words, one sentence), but this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It omits essential details about parameters, behavior, and usage context. Conciseness should not sacrifice information that an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists, no annotations, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It fails to define 'recent', explain the tail parameter, or differentiate from docker_compose_logs. The output schema does not cover behavioral expectations, so the description should fill that gap but does not.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no textual guidance for the two parameters. The description fails to compensate: it does not explain what 'container' expects (e.g., ID, name) or describe the 'tail' parameter (integer, default 100). The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from the field 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 uses a clear verb 'show' and identifies the resource as 'logs from a Docker container', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_ps (listing containers) or docker_stats (metrics). However, 'recent logs' is somewhat vague—it doesn't specify the tail behavior (default 100 lines) or that it shows the end of the log.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_compose_logs, docker_inspect, or docker_health. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.

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