read_runtime_logs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses essential runtime behavior: newest entries first, pagination metadata, default level behavior, filter semantics, and that an empty result means success rather than failure. This is rich, actionable context that goes well beyond what annotations already provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, ordering, pagination, defaults, filtering, empty-result semantics, and an explicit exclusion. It is front-loaded with the tool's core value and immediately clarifies boundaries with the sibling editor-log tool.

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 read-only logging tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when it applies, what it returns, how results are ordered and paginated, how to widen/narrow results, and when not to use it. Nothing critical is left to guesswork.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: it clarifies that the default level means 'warnings + errors', explains how level='all' widens the search, and describes pagination fields (total/count/hasMore/nextCursor) that help an agent interpret results. This is meaningful added value beyond the raw parameter 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 a specific verb ('Read') applied to a specific resource ('console output... from the RUNNING Launch instance'), and explicitly labels it as 'the first-line signal for runtime bugs.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling read_editor_logs by noting this is the launched app only, preventing confusion.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite ('Requires launch_start first') and provides a direct 'When NOT to use' clause pointing to edit-time editor logs, which is the key alternative. It also clarifies default behavior, filtering options, and empty-result semantics, giving an agent clear decision criteria.

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