get_queue_autoaction_logs

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read, the description still adds non-obvious behavior: the dual list/detail modes and the important constraint that the detailed per-issue view is only available for auto-update type autoactions. That availability caveat is genuinely valuable and goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the mode branching. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 read-only tool with three inputs and no output schema, the description covers the modes and the key availability constraint. It is nearly complete, missing only pagination/volume expectations for the list mode.

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 only 33% (only runId is documented in the schema), but the description does explain runId's effect on the result shape. queueId and autoactionId are left to inference, though their names are largely self-explanatory, and no id formats or types are clarified.

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 resource (autoaction run logs) and a clear retrieval verb, and unlike most siblings it explains the two shapes the result can take. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly-named get_queue_trigger_logs, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 gives real branching guidance: omit runId for a list of launches, supply runId for a single launch with per-issue results. That is useful in-tool routing, but there is no when-to-use-vs-alternatives context and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing autoaction.

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