docker_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only, discloses both output streams (stdout+stderr), and notes results are bounded. It omits auth/permission requirements and error or truncation behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short clauses with zero filler, and the core action plus scope is front-loaded before the safety and return-shape notes.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, safety, and the return shape ({container, lines}), so no output schema is needed. Only missing piece is guidance on sibling log tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents lines, container, and instance_id fully, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'bounded' wording loosely reinforces the lines limit but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Tail one container's logs') with scoping qualifiers (stdout+stderr, bounded) that separate it from generic log tools like get_logs and aggregate ones like docker_log_summary. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to choose this over get_logs, docker_log_summary, or cloudwatch_get_log_events, all of which are log-retrieval siblings. The 'one container' framing implies the scope but provides no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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