Show Delivery Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds the endpoint (GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delivery_logs/{id}) and the return format (JSON object), providing context beyond annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with key information: purpose, usage, return format, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a single-record retrieval, given the extensive annotations and schema. However, it does not explain the presence of page and per_page parameters in the schema, which seem unrelated to fetching a single delivery log. This omission reduces completeness for an agent that might need to understand all parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the required parameters (project_id, id) and the endpoint, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) are not explained, though they appear in the schema.

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 verb ('Returns'), the resource ('single Delivery Log'), and the scope ('full details of a specific Daily Log records by its identifier'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_delivery_logs and other show_* functions by focusing on a single record fetch.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Daily Log records by its identifier', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it specify alternatives like list_delivery_logs when the ID is unknown.

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