cloud_app_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that at most 500 log lines are read, logs may contain secrets, raw logs should not be exposed publicly, and includes deployment timing behavior. These details go beyond the schema, though auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned.

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 short and information-dense, but it is fragmented and mixes Vietnamese and English with some redundancy. The actual purpose, 'Read deployment logs,' is placed at the end rather than front-loaded, making the structure less effective than it could be.

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 read-only logging tool, the description provides useful context: log line limit, secret handling warning, and timing expectations. However, it ignores the required app_id parameter, leaves deployment ambiguous, and does not describe the return format. Since there is no output schema, these gaps are noticeable.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. The app_id and deployment parameters are left without meaningful explanation, and the description does not clarify how 'deployment' relates to the log request. Only sandbox has a schema description.

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: 'Read deployment logs.' It also adds context that the tool applies to git-based apps once they are live. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling vibecloud_app_logs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides relevant timing context ('first app host ~2–3 min, deploy later 10–20 seconds') and warns about secrets, which indirectly helps an agent decide when expectations are realistic. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus vibecloud_app_logs or when not to use it.

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