tail_container_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains concurrency and the JSON map output for 'hosts' mode, but does not describe error handling, behavior for invalid hosts, or the exact output format for single-host mode.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every sentence adds useful information about the tool's capabilities and preferred usage.

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 has a moderate number of parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the return format for multi-host mode and clearly indicates the tool's purpose. Single-host output is implied to be raw log lines, and no annotations are present, but the tool is a non-destructive read operation, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying the relationship between 'host' and 'hosts' as alternative modes and explaining the multi-host output behavior, which goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool fetches the last N lines of logs from a remote Docker container, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'tail_log', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need container logs) and gives guidance on using 'hosts' vs 'host', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tail_log' or other log-related tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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