get_logs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the 500-line server retention cap, the offline-log unavailability, and the prompt-injection warning that returned training content is untrusted data — all valuable for correct interpretation of results.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, followed by availability constraints and a safety note. Parenthetical retention detail is compact and earns its place; nothing is padded, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 read-only log retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, retention limits, availability, and an untrusted-data warning. The main remaining gap is truncation/interaction semantics between max_chars and tail_lines, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is only 33%: uid is documented in the schema, but max_chars and tail_lines carry no descriptions in either the schema or the description. The phrase 'bounded tail' hints at tail_lines and retention, yet the description does not explain how max_chars and tail_lines interact or what truncation occurs, leaving the two optional parameters under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read a bounded tail of uploaded console logs'), which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling readers like get_run or list_metrics. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, but 'console logs' is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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?

Provides availability preconditions — 'uploaded' logs only, offline/not-yet-uploaded unavailable — which implicitly tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer get_logs over get_run/diagnose_run, so selection guidance is only implied.

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