rekor_log_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Although 'get' implies a read, the description misses an opportunity to explicitly state behavioral traits like safety or latency.

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?

Single sentence, efficiently states purpose and returned fields. No extraneous words. Front-loads the action and result.

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 parameterless read tool, the description is sufficient: it clarifies the purpose and output fields. However, it could briefly explain the significance of the returned fields (e.g., 'the latest signed tree head') or mention that it returns a JSON object. Given no output schema, slight additional context would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by listing the returned fields (rootHash, treeSize, signedTreeHead, treeID), which are not documented in the input schema. This helps the agent understand what information the tool provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Rekor transparency log status'), and lists the exact fields returned (rootHash, treeSize, signedTreeHead, treeID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rekor_entry or rekor_search which deal with individual entries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose and zero parameters imply it's for global log status, contrasting with entry-specific sibling tools. The description could mention it's for obtaining the current log checkpoint.

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