task_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns log tails and handles missing logs gracefully. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only and non-destructive, nor does it mention any rate limits or size constraints.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core verb and resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: when it works, what it returns on success and failure. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the default value of 'tail_lines' and that 'task_id' is required, but overall it is 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 mentions 'tail_lines' in the context of returning the last lines but does not explain 'task_id' or the exact meaning of 'tail_lines'. The description adds minimal value over the schema, which already shows defaults and requirements.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'stdout/stderr log of a spawned task'. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'spawn_status' or 'tasks' by specifying log reading.

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 provides a key precondition: only works for tasks with 'capture_output=True'. It also explains the behavior when the condition is not met (returns 'no_log'). However, it does not explicitly recommend alternative tools for cases where logs are unavailable.

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