get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no read-only/mutation signal, no permission or auth requirements, no note on truncation, size limits, or behavior when log_path does not exist. The word 'Get' weakly implies a read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to learn return shape or failure behavior, and it says nothing about either. For a log-retrieval tool sitting among several similar siblings, it should at minimum indicate output format (raw lines) and what happens on missing files or permission errors.

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 all three parameters (instance_id, log_path, lines) are already documented in the schema, including the '<account>/<name>' and 'custom/<name>' conventions. The description adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get log file content') and scopes it to 'any managed instance', so the operation is unambiguous. However, it draws no distinction from sibling log tools such as docker_logs, journal_errors, auth_log_summary, or cloudwatch_get_log_events, leaving the agent to guess which log source applies.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling log-fetching tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent seeing docker_logs and cloudwatch_get_log_events side by side has nothing to route on.

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