Get step logs

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavior: logs are returned newest-end-first by default, lines are base64-encoded by Woodpecker and the tool decodes/reassembles them, and the step id comes from get_pipeline. This gives the agent important runtime knowledge that annotations alone do not convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first the core result and ordering, then why the tail default is useful, then where the step id comes from and how encoding is handled. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only log-fetching tool: output format, ordering, failure-oriented use, step id provenance, and decoding behavior are all covered, and the output schema handles return-value details. However, the internal inconsistency about where the step id comes from, plus a lack of any note about when logs become available, prevents it from being fully reliable.

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, and the schema already documents all five parameters well. The description adds one useful provenance note about the step id, but it contradicts the parameter schema: it says workflows[].steps[].id whereas the schema for step_id says workflows[].children[]. This inconsistency can actively mislead an agent into reading the wrong field of get_pipeline results.

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 specific verb and resource: returns the output of one pipeline step as text. It clearly separates this from pipeline-level tooling by emphasizing 'one pipeline step' and even references get_pipeline as the source of the step id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as delete_step_logs or get_pipeline itself, so it falls just short of the strongest purpose-clarity standard.

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 gives practical usage context: a failing step almost always explains itself in its last lines, which tells the agent when to use the default tail behavior. It also tells the agent where to obtain the step id. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the failure-debugging framing is clear enough.

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