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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, or any potential side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that interacts with app infrastructure.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could incorporate a bit more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose but leaves out behavioral details such as what the logs look like or any limitations. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not fully cover all context an agent might need (e.g., ordering, format).

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%, with both parameters (slug and lines) described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'recent logs,' but the schema already documents the parameters adequately, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('recent logs for an app'). Among sibling tools like app_list, deploy, and port_get, logs is uniquely identified as the log retrieval tool, so it distinguishes itself from all siblings.

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 usage: call this tool when you need an app's recent logs. It provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers log retrieval, so the intended use is clear. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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