get_task_logs

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

Description explains that only the trailing portion is returned by default (where errors/tracebacks are), and implies that setting tail_chars=0 retrieves full log. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, disclosing size-related behavior.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately addresses the key behavioral nuance about log size and truncation.

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?

With output schema present, return value details are not needed. Description covers the primary behavior and default truncation. Could mention that logs are for a single attempt, but 'attempt' is already implied by 'try_number' parameter. Minor gap: no mention of potential errors or required permissions, but annotations indicate read-only.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add significant new information about parameters; it merely states the default truncation behavior already implied by the 'tail_chars' description. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states 'Read the log for one task attempt,' specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_task_instance' (which returns task info) and 'clear_task_instances' (which modifies state).

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?

Description implicitly advises that logs can be large and default behavior returns trailing portion, guiding usage of the 'tail_chars' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task_instance' for debugging.

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