jobd_logs

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

The description discloses important behaviors: works for running and finished jobs, returns truncated log, and caps at 1 MiB. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it covers the key aspects well, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive.

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 concise: two sentences plus a usage sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and efficiently provides all necessary information.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers return fields, applicability, and limits. It could mention error scenarios, but for most use cases it is sufficient.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema. For tail_bytes, it says 'Raise for context, lower for a quick liveness peek,' which aids the agent in choosing a value. For job_id, it confirms it is numeric.

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 tool's purpose: 'Tail the captured stdout/stderr of a job.' It specifies the resource (job logs) and action (tail), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobd_status or jobd_job_get by focusing on log output.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use to check progress mid-run, diagnose a failure's traceback, or grab a job's final output.' This gives clear context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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