Tail Service Errors

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing chronological ordering, the optional inclusion of WARN lines, and the error behavior when the service_name doesn't match a running container. This adds useful behavioral context.

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 text is organized into Args/Returns/Error Handling, but it contains the repeated corrupted token '= require(' which disrupts readability and looks like an accidental code snippet. This is a structural quality issue that prevents a higher score.

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 there is no output schema, the description does explain the return shape (N most-recent, chronological order) and error handling, which is good. Still, it lacks explicit routing to alternatives and the corrupted wording makes it less complete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little new semantic value. It provides an example value and restates the limit/warnings meaning, but does not meaningfully extend the 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('most recent ERROR and FATAL log lines from a specific container'), and gives a clear use case ('find the initial failure point'). However, the literal text contains a corrupted token '= require(' which undermines clarity, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool tail_service_logs.

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 phrase 'the fastest way to find the initial failure point before diving into a full trace' implies when to use this tool, but it never names alternatives like tail_service_logs or search_logs, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is only implicit and contextual.

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