get_log_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the core behavior: a read-only retrieval of log file contents as text. However, it does not state non-destructiveness, failure behavior for invalid filenames, size limits, or any other edge-case behavior. For a simple download tool, the basic behavior is clear enough for a baseline score.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and output format. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it states what is downloaded, how many files, and the return format. The schema provides the filename source and example. The only minor gap is that the description itself does not explicitly mention the list_log_files prerequisite, but the schema and sibling context make it recoverable.

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 schema already documents the filename parameter with its source ('from list_log_files') and an example. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('download'), the resource ('contents of one log file'), and the return format ('as text'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_log_files and list_logs, which are about listing rather than downloading file contents.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of the prerequisite that the filename comes from list_log_files. That hint exists only in the schema's parameter description, so the tool description itself does not help an agent decide when to invoke this versus alternatives.

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