Show Inspection Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it is a GET endpoint and returns a JSON object, which is consistent and adds slight context about the API action. No contradictions. It does not elaborate on rate limits or authentication, but given the annotations, the description meets expectations.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then providing necessary details (parameters, API reference). Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 fetch-by-ID operation, the description is complete. It specifies the output format (JSON), required parameters, and the API endpoint. No output schema exists, but the return type is stated. The description adequately covers what the agent needs to know to use the tool correctly.

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% and each parameter has a description. The description mentions the required parameters (project_id, id) and the endpoint path, but does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool returns a single Inspection Log with full details, specifying the resource (Inspection Log/Daily Log) and the action (fetch by identifier). It distinguishes from list tools by emphasizing 'single' and 'full details'. The title and description are almost consistent; the plural title is a minor flaw but does not detract from clarity.

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 tells when to use the tool: to fetch full details of a specific Daily Log record by its identifier. It lists required parameters and the API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling show tools. This omission prevents a score of 5.

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