jobd_logs

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

Discloses that it returns log_tail with configurable tail_bytes (default 8 KiB, max 1 MiB) plus metadata fields, and works for both running and finished jobs. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does so well.

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?

Two sentences, first contains main action and context, second details use cases. Efficient with no wasted words, though the second sentence is slightly dense.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates return fields (log_tail, size_bytes, returned_bytes, truncated). Covers behavior for running/finished jobs and mentions tail size limits. Sufficiently complete for a log-reading tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds semantic guidance: for job_id, it specifies 'numeric'; for tail_bytes, it explains purpose and provides usage advice ('Raise for context, lower for a quick liveness peek').

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 it tails captured stdout/stderr of a job, specifying that it works for running and finished jobs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (submit, status, cancel) by being solely for reading logs.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: check progress mid-run, diagnose failure traceback, grab final output. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so the guidance is clear enough.

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