Get Job Log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior for still-running jobs, truncation semantics beyond the tail window, or errors when a job/log does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a simple retrieval tool. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point that useful detail was omitted rather than trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and one required parameter (output_dir) never addressed, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across 3 parameters. The phrase 'last N lines' loosely maps to tail_lines and 'a job's log' implies job_id, but output_dir — a required parameter with no schema description — is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess why a log read needs an output directory.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (job's log output) and adds scope (last N lines), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_job_status, list_jobs, and cancel_job. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous enough that no sibling confusion arises.

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 on when to use this versus get_job_status or list_jobs, and no mention of prerequisites or when the log would be unavailable. The agent must infer that this is the diagnostic follow-up to a status check.

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