get_task_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully discloses behavior. It explains that the tool retrieves logs, which fields (stdout/stderr) can be included, and that tail/head/pattern filters are applied. The description is honest about the head parameter being ignored if tail is set, and there are no contradictions.

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 structured with an initial sentence followed by bulleted parameter descriptions. It is clear and readable, but could be more concise by reducing wordiness in parameter explanations. However, it earns a 4 for efficiency and good structure.

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 has an output schema (not shown but present), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all 6 parameters, their defaults, and special behaviors (e.g., head overridden by tail). For a log retrieval tool with moderate complexity, this is fully complete.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It does so thoroughly: explains pathspec format, defaults for stdout/stderr, the behavior of tail, head (and the interaction between them), and pattern as regex filtering. This is essential semantic information beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 retrieves stdout/stderr logs for a specific task. The verb 'Get' and resource 'logs for a specific task' are specific. Among sibling tools, none focus on logs, so it is well differentiated.

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 implies use when logs are needed but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines. No alternatives are suggested, and the context for using this over other tools is not elaborated.

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