docker_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does deliver useful behavioral context: logs are 'combined stdout/stderr' and 'most recent', which sets expectations for the output. It does not disclose permission requirements, behavior on a missing container, or that it is a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, capturing the verb, resource, recency scope, and stream type efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description adequately conveys source (container on Docker host), scope (most recent), and stream type; the only gap is the absence of any usage routing against kubectl_logs.

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 server, container, and tail (including default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (combined stdout/stderr log lines) scoped to a container on a Docker host, which distinguishes it from kubectl_logs and cisco_logs/journall_errors. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify vs kubectl_logs, but the Docker/container anchoring is specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kubectl_logs or journal_errors, and no prerequisites or conditions stated. Usage is only implied by the scope of the description.

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