Tail Service Logs

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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the behavior bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: returned logs are the most recent matching lines, in chronological order, and omitting level_filter returns all levels. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 organized with Args and Returns and is reasonably compact. However, the first sentence contains a stray '= require(' artifact and 'return for all levels' is grammatically incomplete, which makes it less polished than it could be.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned, ordering, filtering behavior, and when to use it. The malformed opening sentence and lack of explicit error/edge-case behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 the schema already explains service_name, limit defaults and bounds, and level_filter values. The description mostly restates these details without adding new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: retrieve the N most-recent log lines for a specific container or service, with optional level filtering. It also positions this tool as a way to get general context before narrowing to a trace ID, which helps differentiate it from search_by_trace_id. However, the phrase '= require(a specific container' is malformed and slightly obscures the intended meaning.

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 gives clear usage context by suggesting it be used to get general service context before narrowing to a trace ID. This implies when it is appropriate relative to trace-focused siblings, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as tail_service_errors or search_logs.

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