Container logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond these by disclosing the return envelope ('Returns JSON: {ok, message, next_tool, next_args, ...tool-specific fields}') and the specific log content, which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Tail of the container log') and the return format is succinctly stated. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough for a competent agent: it names the resource, the notable log content, and the response envelope. The only notable gap is the lack of clarification for instance_id, but this is a common identifier and the schema marks it required.

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 50%: only 'tail' is documented, while required 'instance_id' has no description. The description does not mention either parameter or compensate for the missing instance_id semantics. An agent must infer that instance_id identifies the container, which is plausible but not explicit.

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 action and resource: 'Tail of the container log.' It adds a distinctive detail (weight-download progress from setup script) that makes it clear what this tool offers beyond generic log retrieval. No sibling tool appears to overlap with this purpose, so an agent can reliably distinguish it.

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 implies when to use (inspect container logs, especially setup progress) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or state prerequisites, so usage context is only inferred.

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