infra_logs_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that `since` uses duration formats, `grep` is plain text, and `stack` selects a compose project. However, it doesn't specify behavior like continuous tailing, what `tail` means, or error handling, leaving gaps for a log tool.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear, scannable parameter notes. Every sentence adds value, and the line break separates general behavior from specific stack guidance.

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?

With five parameters and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it covers core purpose and three parameters, but misses `tail` semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need prose, but the parameter gap makes the description not fully self-sufficient.

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 compensate. It explains `since`, `grep`, and `stack` meanings, but leaves `tail` and `service` unexplained. `tail` is ambiguous (likely number of lines) despite having a default in schema, and `service` is only self-evident from the tool name. This partial coverage is insufficient given zero schema descriptions.

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 'Tail logs from one compose service,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling infra tools by focusing on logs and clarifying multi-stack project selection. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 this tool is for viewing logs, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. It does include useful parameter-level guidance (e.g., 'since accepts 10m / 1h / 2d', 'grep is plain text') which helps contextual use, but not as alternative selection.

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