get_deployment_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention pagination, log ordering, output format, or any side effects. For a log-fetching tool, the absence of such behavioral details leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect beyond the input schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose. It lacks extended details like response format, but given the low complexity and high schema coverage, it is reasonably complete. The sibling distinction also adds contextual value.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (deploymentId and limit), with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered tools but does not enhance it.

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 action (get) and resource (runtime/application logs for a deployment). It distinguishes from the sibling get_build_logs by specifying 'runtime/application logs', making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context that this tool is for retrieving runtime/application logs for a deployment, implying use when troubleshooting runtime issues. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the distinction from build logs is implicit, giving clear usage context without exclusions.

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