get_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation and that request/response bodies are included, but it does not mention auth requirements, potential truncation of bodies, error behavior, or retention limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The endpoint parenthetical adds useful context, and the core capability is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage, and the description clearly identifies the resource and the response content. Although there is no output schema and some behavioral details are absent, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with a log id.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is already described as 'The log id.' The description does not add materially beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Retrieve a single API log entry', which clearly distinguishes this tool from list_logs and other sibling tools. Including 'request/response bodies' and the endpoint 'GET /logs/:id' adds precise scope.

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 phrase 'a single API log entry' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus listing logs, and the endpoint implies a direct lookup by id. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state exclusion criteria such as 'use list_logs to find IDs first.'

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