execution_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 for behavioral traits. It only states 'Get execution log' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. The description is insufficient for understanding behavioral impact.

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, being a single sentence. It conveys the core purpose but is too minimal to be considered well-structured. While it earns its place by stating the function, it lacks additional structure like formatting or natural language flow.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, fields). It does not. The single parameter is only vaguely referenced. For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about return format and parameter behavior.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), but the schema itself shows a 'limit' parameter with default 100. The description indirectly references this by saying 'last 100 entries', which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain that the limit parameter controls the number of entries returned, nor does it elaborate on valid values or constraints. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage does not apply; here the description should compensate but does minimally.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the execution log with a default of last 100 entries. The verb 'Get' and resource 'execution log' are specific, and the scope is implied by the default limit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though none seem to have overlapping purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage direction beyond stating what the tool does.

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