Get Apex Log Summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses that the log may be incomplete, that limits are broken out per namespace, and that the terminating cause is reported on failure. It does not mention failure modes for an invalid path or log size constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a single dense enumeration of the returned content, closed by a short use-case tagline. The long middle clause is list-like but every item maps to real output content, so nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by naming each summary component. With annotations covering the safety profile and the sole parameter fully documented, the only gap is error behavior for a missing or unreadable log file.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage ('Absolute path'), the schema already carries full documentation. The description adds no path format, encoding, or locality detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Apex debug log summary') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: transaction duration, time by debug category and level, governor limits per namespace, completeness, and failure cause. It contrasts implicitly with the list_* siblings by framing itself as a 'high-level summary' and 'quick overview' rather than an enumeration, but it never names the alternatives.

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?

'Best for a quick overview' gives a clear use context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named (apexlog_list_limit_risks and apexlog_list_slow_operations are left for the agent to reason about). The usage signal is implied rather than spelled out.

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