jobd_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses stream mechanics ('workers stream output to the broker's per-job log as it runs'), lifecycle support ('running AND finished'), and exact return semantics including tail_bytes default/max and truncation metadata. It does not explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or side-effect absence, but those are less critical for a tail/read operation.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core action, follow with return format and lifecycle nuance, and end with concrete use cases. No filler, no repetition of schema fields that isn't functional.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape (log_tail plus size_bytes/returned_bytes/truncated), the parameter semantics, and the supported job states. For a 2-parameter read tool, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance beyond the schema: 'Raise for context, lower for a quick liveness peek' for tail_bytes, and it reiterates the default and max. This is modest but genuine added semantic value.

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: 'Tail the captured stdout/stderr of a job.' The description clearly distinguishes from siblings like jobd_status by focusing on output logs, and clarifies it returns a tail of the log. It names the return payload and available metadata, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'check progress mid-run, diagnose a failure's traceback, or grab a job's final output.' It also notes the tool works for 'running AND finished jobs,' which helps an agent decide when to call it. It does not name alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops shy of a 5.

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