docker_logs

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads logs ('tail'), implying non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, or behavior with non-existent containers, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and object, making it easy to scan.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is passably complete but lacks guidance on output format and usage context. With siblings present, more detail would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only mentions 'N lines' and implies 'container', but does not explain the container parameter format (name vs. ID) or the lines parameter's range. The default of 100 is in schema but not described.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Tail last N lines from a Docker container's logs') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like docker_errors (filtered) and docker_grep (search). It effectively communicates the tool's exact function.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., docker_grep for searching, tail for generic log tailing). The context of siblings is provided, but the description does not help the agent decide between them.

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