Get Diagnostic Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'anonymized' as behavioral context, but lacks details about output format or potential side effects. This is adequate given the rich annotations.

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 sentence of 10 words, extremely concise with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not describe the return format or how the logs/insights are delivered, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The only parameter 'signatureId' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning or how to obtain it. The sibling tool asc_list_diagnostic_signatures could provide context, but the description itself adds little value for parameter understanding.

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 'Download' and identifies the resource as 'anonymized call-stack logs and insights' for one diagnostic signature. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like asc_list_diagnostic_signatures.

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 implies usage with a single diagnostic signature but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling tool asc_list_diagnostic_signatures is a natural prerequisite, but this isn't mentioned.

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