Engine run log (diagnostic)

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

No annotations provided; the description carries full burden. It describes the log contents but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The behavior is implied as safe, but lack of explicit safety declarations is a gap.

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 sentence with a bullet-like list, but it is somewhat lengthy and complex. It could be more structured for easier parsing by an AI agent, though no extraneous information is present.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lists the log contents (timing, retries, etc.) which provides basic completeness. However, it lacks details about output format, pagination, or how to interpret results, which are important for a diagnostic tool.

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% (one optional parameter 'tid'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline score of 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 it provides engine-level run logs for diagnostic purposes, listing specific content types (timing, retries, timeouts, etc.). It subtly distinguishes itself from sibling agent action tools by its diagnostic nature, but does not explicitly compare.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before drawing conclusions about tool execution failures, to differentiate between worker decision and model-side issues. Implicitly avoids usage for non-diagnostic tasks, but does not list alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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