deployado_get_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic context: logs are container-level runtime/application output, not build output. It stays silent on what happens if the app isn't running or how 'recent' is bounded.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the disambiguation. No filler or restated title text.

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?

For a 3-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose and sibling routing adequately. Since there is no output schema, the absence of any hint about return shape or truncation behavior is a small remaining gap.

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 lines, timestamps, and app_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, 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 + resource (fetch recent runtime logs) and scopes it precisely to 'a running app's container'. The explicit contrast with build logs lets an agent distinguish it from deployado_get_build_logs without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('NOT build logs') plus the concrete alternative (deployado_get_build_logs) and the scenario that selects it ('why a deploy failed'). It does not address the other log-adjacent sibling deployado_release_logs, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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