Get deployment logs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds real context beyond them: results are newest-first, and a null `source` means neither store had data for the window and is not an error. It stops short of describing volume/pagination limits or log-line format, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 doing distinct work: what it returns, when to reach for it, and how to interpret a null result. The resource definition is front-loaded before the usage triggers.

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 shape need not be spelled out, and the description still covers the one interpretation trap (null source). With annotations handling safety and schema handling parameters, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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 schema itself documents defaults, enum values, and the source fallback ordering, so the description adds little on inputs. Its mention of `source` refers to the response field rather than the parameter's semantics, which slightly muddies the mapping. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource: read raw log lines and uncaught exceptions produced by a deployed workflow, with explicit ordering ('newest first'). It also names the sibling it complements (get_deployment_status), so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a direct trigger ('when a run failed without explanation') and an alternative-path trigger ('or get_deployment_status shows errors you need to see'). The escalation relationship to the sibling tool is explicit rather than inferred.

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