oc_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description mentions 'streaming options' which implies follow behavior, but it does not disclose potential long-running operations, large log outputs, or permission requirements. This lack of detail leaves the agent without important behavioral awareness.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the one-sentence description provides only a high-level overview. While the schema fills in parameter details, the description does not address usage context, edge cases, or alternatives, leaving the agent with limited guidance for selection.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or interaction effects between parameters.

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 'Get logs from OpenShift resources' with specific resource examples (pods, deployments, builds). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oc_get or oc_describe, which serve different purposes. The verb 'Get' and resource 'logs' provide a clear, specific purpose.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor gives exclusions. However, the explicit focus on logs implies a distinct use case, but it's not directly stated.

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