get_job_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral context: 'bounded' and 'tails' disclose that the output is intentionally limited and focused on the end of the streams. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the job must be completed, or error handling, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place: 'Return', 'bounded', 'stdout and stderr tails', 'for one job'—all directly contribute to understanding the tool's function.

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 output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description is passable. It identifies the target (one job), the streams (stdout/stderr), and the bounded nature. However, it lacks explanatory detail about the two optional parameters and their effect on the bounded output, leaving clear gaps in the overall picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'bounded' and 'tails' hints at the purpose of the 'tail' and 'max_bytes' parameters, but it does not explain what 'tail' counts (lines? bytes?) or how 'max_bytes' interacts. The parameters remain under-specified, making it hard for an agent to know how to set them correctly.

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 'Return' and specifies the resource: 'bounded stdout and stderr tails for one job.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs (lists jobs) and get_job_status (fetches status), making the purpose 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?

Usage is implied: you use this tool when you need logs for a specific job. However, the description offers no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., 'use get_job_status for status, this for logs'). It provides a basic context but no comparative direction.

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