timeweb_get_deploy_logs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only restates the action. It does not mention whether logs are paginated, streamed, truncated, or how the output is structured, adding no meaningful behavior beyond the tool name.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it lacks context, though conciseness itself is strong.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameter definitions, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about return structure or the nature of deployment logs. Some gaps remain, but the baseline is adequate for a basic log-fetch operation.

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 full descriptions and enum values for all three parameters (app_id, deploy_id, format), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 logs' and the resource 'a specific deployment', making the core purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like timeweb_get_app_logs or timeweb_get_server_logs, as 'deployment' is not elaborated in the context of app deployments.

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 instead of alternatives such as timeweb_get_app_logs or timeweb_get_server_logs. The description gives no context about deployment-specific use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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