query-logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (though the schema hints at 'limit'), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether logs are real-time or historical, or what format/logs are returned. The description adds almost no value beyond the basic verb.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While under-specified, it's structurally efficient with every word contributing to the basic intent.

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 tool with 13 nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the complex filtering capabilities, return format, pagination, or behavioral constraints. The agent must rely entirely on the schema's property names without contextual guidance about how to effectively use this logging tool.

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?

The description provides zero parameter information despite the schema having 0% description coverage and 13 nested properties under 'query'. It doesn't mention any filtering options, time ranges, or output limits. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding relies entirely on the schema's property names without contextual guidance.

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 'Get the build or runtime logs' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('logs'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from potential siblings. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all logs, filtered logs, or real-time streams, leaving ambiguity about what 'Get' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get-deployment' or 'get-instance' that might provide log-related information. Usage context is entirely implied from the tool name.

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