Get the log ingestion contract and code snippets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the endpoint may be a placeholder if probe_server_start hasn't been called. It also lists what is returned (schema, env vars, snippets). It doesn't mention side effects, but as a read-only getter this is likely unnecessary.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, lists contents in a structured flow, and ends with a direct usage directive. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values by listing the four components. It also provides usage context and a conditional behavior. It could mention potential errors or edge cases, but for a simple getter with one optional param, it is quite complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: the one parameter 'language' has a clear enum and description ('Omit to get snippets for all languages'). The main description doesn't add significant information about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns everything needed to instrument target code') and enumerates the exact contents (endpoint, schema, env vars, snippets). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the ingestion contract, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 before inserting any instrumentation so calls match the contract exactly,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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