get_job_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the logs are bounded ('bounded stdout and stderr tails'), intended for failed/stalled jobs, and not for progress monitoring. It does not specify what happens if the job is healthy or if logs are empty, but the core behavioral constraints are clear. A score of 4 reflects strong disclosure without full detail.

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 two short paragraphs, each sentence adds value. The first sentence defines purpose, the second gives clear usage guidelines and exclusions. No fluff or repetition.

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 has an output schema (which likely describes the log structure), and the description explains when to use it. It covers the main use case and boundary conditions. It lacks details on parameter semantics (like tail units or max_bytes limits) and edge cases (e.g., job not found), but for a read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, this is sufficient. A 4 is warranted given the strong usage guidance offsets minor gaps.

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% and there are three parameters. The description does not detail parameters, but it introduces the concept of 'bounded' tails and 'stdout/stderr' which hints at the meaning of tail and max_bytes. It does not explicitly map parameters, but the context gives enough for a reasonable inference. Given zero coverage, the description partially compensates, hence a 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Inspect bounded stdout and stderr tails') and narrows the scope to 'a known failed or stalled job', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_job_status or wait_for_job. It precisely defines what the tool does and does not do.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after a terminal wait reports failure, timeout, stall, or loss'), what it should not be used for ('do not use as a progress stream, do not repeatedly tail a running healthy Job'), and names the alternative (wait_for_job) for learning completion. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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