Read job logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (stream types, byte cursor/tail modes) but doesn't disclose defaults (e.g., normalized stream), pagination behavior beyond cursor semantics, or response structure. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence conveys the core purpose, stream options, and access methods with zero redundancy. Every word contributes information, and the most important distinctions are front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and annotations covering readonly/idempotent behavior, the description provides the essential information needed to understand what the tool does. Minor gaps like default stream selection are already captured in the schema's stream description. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 60% (stream, tail_lines, after_cursor have descriptions) while job_id and max_bytes lack descriptions. The description loosely maps to parameters via 'byte cursor or tail' and lists stream types, but adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for covered parameters and doesn't compensate for undocumented ones.

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 'Read' with a clear resource 'raw events, normalized human-readable lines, or stderr for a job'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agy_send or agy_cancel by focusing on reading logs, and mentions distinct stream types and access methods.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agy_result or agy_list_jobs. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites; the description only states capabilities, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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