loki_tail_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that partial container names are resolved against live containers, that a unique match is automatically tailed and flagged, and that ambiguous matches return candidates. It also notes filter case-sensitivity and application of LogQL, which are important behavioral details.

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 compact and uses a clear per-parameter layout for scannability. Each sentence provides necessary information—no filler or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers parameter semantics, resolution behavior, and filter mechanics, making the tool fully operational from the description alone. The behavioral disclosures about candidate returns and flagging round out the context.

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 0%, but the description documents each parameter meaningfully: container name resolution with examples, minutes default, limit default, and filter semantics (LogQL substring, case-sensitive). This adds substantial value 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 opens with a clear verb ('Tail') and resource ('most recent log lines for a single container'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling Loki query tools. The tool's scope is explicitly limited to a single container, which separates it from list and query tools.

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 explains the intended use case for tailing logs and provides essential context for the container parameter (exact names vs. fuzzy resolution). It does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative like loki_query_range, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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