get_flow_error_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns 'detailed error logs' for 'failed flow executions', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or output format. This adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and object ('detailed error logs'), with no redundant words or filler. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what is returned (detailed error logs) and for which executions (failed), which should allow an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could possibly describe the structure of the logs, but it's not essential for a basic read operation.

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%, with parameters flow_sys_id, days, and limit all having basic descriptions and defaults. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to these parameters; it simply restates the purpose. Since the schema carries the burden, the baseline 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 'Get detailed error logs for failed flow executions' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed error logs') with a clear scope ('failed flow executions'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_flow_executions and get_flow_execution, which focus on execution metadata, not error logs.

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 phrase 'for failed flow executions' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need logs from failed flows. It implicitly excludes successful executions, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use other log-related tools like get_sys_log.

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