deployado_release_logs

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine context beyond them — it works for both in-progress and finished builds, and returns status/timing metadata alongside the logs. It stops short of stating truncation behavior or size limits, but the useful traits are disclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then usage. No filler or repetition. A fifth point would require tightening the mild overlap between the 'works for both' and 'returns the full logs' sentences.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('full logs plus status/timing metadata'). Combined with the fully-specified input schema and annotations, an agent has nearly everything needed — only the sibling overlap with `get_build_logs` is unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose hint about where release IDs come from (and slightly diverges from the schema, which points at `list_releases` rather than `deployado deploy` output).

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 and resource: 'Fetch the docker build transcript for a release.' An agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling `deployado_get_build_logs` (and `deployado_get_logs`), which leaves real ambiguity for selection.

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?

'Use this when investigating a build failure' gives a clear trigger context, and provenance of the release ID is spelled out. But no when-NOT-to-use guidance and no mention of the competing `get_build_logs` / `get_logs` siblings, which is the main thing an agent would need resolved here.

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