sf_get_debug_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention return format, potential size limits, metadata fields included, or any required context like targetOrg. The description adds little beyond the verb itself.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 minimal for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain what 'directory' and 'targetOrg' mean, and doesn't describe the return structure beyond 'body and metadata'. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke 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 description coverage is 0% and the description only references 'logId' without explaining it. The 'directory' and 'targetOrg' parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly.

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 reads the body and metadata for a specific Apex debug log id, using a specific verb (read) and resource (debug log). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_list_debug_logs which list logs, and sf_enable_debug_logs/sf_disable_debug_logs which manage logging.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you have a specific logId and need to retrieve its content. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from listing or enabling/disabling logs is clear from the sibling tool names.

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