yaaif_ops_desktop_worker_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state READ-ONLY and accurately frames the tool as a telemetry alias, which is useful safety context. However, it says nothing about ordering, filtering, defaults, truncation behavior, or operational caveats, leaving significant behavior unexplained for a 7-parameter tool without an output schema.

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 terse and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY notice, avoiding wasted words. Each clause contributes useful information about the resource or alias relationship. However, given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, this brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

For a logs tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six optional parameters whose behavior is mostly undocumented, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It establishes the core resource and safety profile but leaves pagination, defaults, result shape, and the required desktop_run_id relationship to inference. The alias merely defers the burden to another 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 adds no direct parameter meaning. desktop_run_id, limit, offset, and include_raw are not explained beyond the schema field names, and the alias does not clarify their semantics. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as desktop worker logs and marks the operation READ-ONLY. The alias reference to yaaif_ops_telemetry with resource=desktop_logs pinpoints the underlying data source. It does not explicitly contrast with related tools like yaaif_ops_ambient_worker_logs or yaaif_mcp_deployment_logs, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the alias statement. An agent learns this tool equals yaaif_ops_telemetry resource=desktop_logs, but there is no condition, exclusion, or comparison to alternatives such as yaaif_ops_desktop_run_get or yaaif_ops_session_events. The intended context is only implicit in the phrase 'desktop worker logs.'

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