Read SSH Task Run Log

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

The annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: the log is capped, configured secret inputs are redacted, and the local log path is omitted from the response. This exceeds the annotation-only baseline without contradicting it.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, each adding distinct information. There is no filler or repetition of the structured schema and annotations.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the required runId, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the primary behavioral aspects. Minor gaps remain around the meaning of 'capped' and the role of workspaceId, but these are modest for a simple read-only log 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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explain how runId or workspaceId should be used. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail about them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reads a capped SSH task run log.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing or running tasks, and the title aligns exactly with the described operation.

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 intended use case is implied by the name and description: retrieve the run log for an SSH task run. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this rather than related tools such as list_task_runs or get_task, and no mention of when not to use it.

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