Get task logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope. The description adds that output is a 'readable summary of commands, edits and messages' rather than raw output, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about truncation limits, defaults, or failure modes.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope ('last lines') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical could be folded into a clearer statement of return format.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden; it does so only loosely by calling the log a 'readable summary'. Default tail size, truncation behavior, and the relationship to other log/transcript tools are left unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for a 2-param retrieval tool.

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 50%: task_id is documented ('task_id from start_task') but tail_lines has no description, no default, and no stated maximum in the description. 'Last lines' hints at tail behavior but does not tell the agent how many lines are returned by default or how tail_lines bounds the result.

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 names the resource (a task's log) and its scope (last lines), with a parenthetical clarifying the content type. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_task or get_task_diff.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_task, get_task_diff, or get_transcript. The 'last lines' scope implies a tail-style read, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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