logs_container

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. The description adds a minor scoping detail ('recent') but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like whether logs are streamed, truncated, or in what format.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource, making it immediately clear.

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?

The tool is simple, with read-only annotations and a basic schema, but the description lacks usage context and parameter meaning. It adequately identifies the primary function but leaves gaps around when to use it and what the return output looks like.

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%: tail has a description in the schema, but container does not. The tool description does not compensate by explaining either parameter beyond the generic phrase 'from a container,' which merely repeats the parameter name. It fails to clarify the expected format or role of the container argument.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('recent log output from a container'), which directly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docker_compose_logs by specifying 'container' rather than compose services, and it's distinct from inspection or management commands.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_compose_logs or inspect_container. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.

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