inspect_log

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns concrete instances with specific data. While it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or non-destructive, the inspection nature is clear and no side effects are implied.

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 of 18 words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

For a simple inspection tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input (id from list_page_logs) and output (instances with details). Minor omission: no mention of pagination or behavior when limit is exceeded, but likely not critical.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, as it reiterates the id source (list_page_logs) and limit behavior which are already in schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'inspect', the resource 'a deduplicated console log group', and specifies the returned details (timestamps, stack traces, source locations). It distinguishes from sibling tool list_page_logs by indicating this tool inspects a specific group from that output.

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?

Description implies usage after list_page_logs with group_by='message', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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