yaaif_ops_ambient_worker_logs

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

The description declares READ-ONLY, which is a key behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens if ambient_run_id is invalid, nor does it describe the shape of the result or any potential errors. The alias relationship is disclosed but not elaborated.

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 extremely short and gets the key point across quickly, with the READ-ONLY warning front-loaded. It is one sentence, which is appropriately minimal for a simple alias.

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 7 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to construct a valid call beyond the alias, nor what the results look like. The agent might understand it is a log fetcher but lacks details on filtering, pagination, and output format. The alias is helpful but not complete for a parameter-rich tool.

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 only 43%, and the description does not explain the meaning of any parameters beyond the bare names. Several parameters (ambient_run_id, limit, offset, include_raw) lack schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate. The agent is left to guess at their semantics, especially ambient_run_id and include_raw.

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 it is a read-only alias for ambient worker logs, and identifies the underlying resource. It distinguishes itself from other log tools like yaaif_ops_desktop_worker_logs, but does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 says it is an alias, which implies it can be used when you need ambient worker logs, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the underlying telemetry resource or other log tools. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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