kernel_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but does not describe what the logs contain, what format they are returned in, whether pagination or filtering applies, or how errors are handled. This is minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized because it omits essential information about the parameter and behavior, so the brevity is not entirely a virtue.

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?

With one required parameter whose semantics are undocumented, no annotations, no output schema, and no distinction from related kernel tools, the description leaves too much unknown. An agent cannot reliably determine how to fill in ref, what the tool will return, or how it differs from kernel_output, making this definition inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter, ref, has an empty schema description and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention ref at all, leaving the agent without any indication of what the parameter identifies (e.g., a running kernel, a submitted execution, or a kernel version).

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('kernel execution logs'), which is specific enough to convey the general purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as kernel_output, kernel_files, or kernel_status, leaving potential ambiguity about differences in scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like kernel_output and kernel_status offer related functionality, but there is no mention of them or of the conditions that would make kernel_logs the right choice.

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