Tail Logs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the crucial trait that this is polled rather than streamed and the default 30s window on first call. It stops short of other traits an agent needs for a 23-param tool: no permission/auth notes, no rate-limit or cost warnings, and it references 'nextSince' without saying it comes back in the response (no output schema exists).

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the cursor contract, then the polling model. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

A 23-parameter tool with 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more than three sentences. The parameter surface is unexplained and the return contract (notably nextSince) is referenced but never defined, so an agent lacks the information to use the tool correctly beyond the simplest call.

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 only 17% across 23 parameters, so the description has to compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only the `since` cursor semantics and implies `pods`; the other ~21 filters (regex, contains/containsAll/containsAny/notContains, loglevel, sample, excludePatterns, offset, connection, etc.) are neither documented in the schema nor explained here.

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+resource: 'Polling live tail for one or more pods', which clearly conveys the operation. However it gives no differentiation from the many sibling log tools (dynatrace_pod_logs, dynatrace_search_logs, dynatrace_logs_surrounding, dynatrace_logs_wait), leaving the agent to guess which log tool to pick.

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?

It gives genuinely useful continuity guidance ('Pass since from the previous nextSince', 'First call defaults to now-30s') and states the polling model ('Not a websocket; poll from the agent'). But it never says when to choose this over search_logs, pod_logs, or logs_wait, so alternative-selection is left implicit.

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