List task run logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral value by disclosing that the result is a set of filenames rather than log content, but it says nothing about pagination, filtering, ordering, or behavior when a run has no logs. Adequate but thin against the annotation baseline.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up workflow hint second. Every sentence earns its place.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the purpose plus the next step in the workflow. It is close to complete for a simple read-only list tool, with only minor gaps (no mention of empty results or ordering).

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 100%, so task_run_id, pipeline_run_id, and the account-override header are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List log files linked to a task run'), which is enough to distinguish it from the neighboring list_task_run_artifacts tool. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the 'log files' scoping is clear.

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 second sentence gives actionable chaining guidance: the returned filenames are meant to be fed to the download endpoint (download_task_run_log). It gives clear context for what to do with the result, though it does not state when this tool should be preferred over siblings or any prerequisites/exclusions.

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