yaaif_mcp_deployment_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses automatic routing to /logs vs /k8s/logs, but does not mention return format, pagination, tail behavior, or whether any permissions are required. Some behavior is disclosed, but significant gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the routing detail is presented compactly. Every word earns its place.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. It explains routing but leaves out what the returned logs look like and what 'tail' controls, leaving an agent to guess at invocation details.

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 should compensate, but it does not explain deployment_id or tail at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'tail' is ambiguous (lines vs. seconds) and the description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema property names.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('MCP deployment logs'), and the routing note distinguishes it from sibling deployment status or management tools. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 route information clarifies that it works for both docker_compose and kubernetes_gitops deployments, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives like yaaif_mcp_deployment_status or the ops log tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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