Retrieve log stream override

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by specifying the underlying API call (GET) and the precedence behavior. This context goes beyond what annotations provide, but does not disclose potential auth requirements or pagination details. Adequate for a read-only operation.

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 sentences plus an API endpoint reference. It front-loads the action and provides relevant context without any filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned and the precedence logic. However, it could mention that the return is the override configuration object (though no output schema exists). Still, with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 100% with a well-described required parameter (resourceId). The description does not add new semantics beyond restating that it applies to a specific resource. It does not provide additional format or validation rules. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter.

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 it retrieves log stream override information for a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like render_list_resource_log_streams (which lists all) and render_get_owner_log_stream (which is for the owner level). The verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'log stream override' are specific.

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 explains that a log stream override takes precedence over the workspace default, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like render_list_resource_log_streams or render_get_owner_log_stream, leaving some implicit guidance. Overall clear enough but could be more explicit.

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