get-logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds significant behavioral context: default behavior (latest deployment if no deployment_id), content of logs (framework detection, dependency installation, build steps, etc.), and common failure scenarios (missing dependencies, build errors, port issues). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (about 5 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then gives usage context, lists log contents, and ends with troubleshooting tips. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, default behavior, log contents, common issues, and parameter hints. No gaps are apparent for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema: it explains the default behavior of deployment_id (optional, defaults to latest) and provides a helpful hint to use get-status to see recent deployment IDs. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 verb and resource: 'Get build and runtime logs for a deployment.' It also specifies the default behavior (returns logs for latest deployment if no deployment_id provided) and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as a tool to use after deploy to monitor progress and diagnose failures.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this after calling deploy to monitor build progress and diagnose failures.' It also provides troubleshooting context (common issues) and references another tool ('Use get-status to see recent deployment IDs') in the parameter description, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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