get_pipeline_trace_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (logger, level, message, timestamp, extra fields), the exclusion of errors outside the pipeline, and the automatic storing of output with an object ID for reference. It does not mention pagination or auth, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond a simple read-only claim.

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 longer than average but well-structured with clear paragraphs and param documentation. Some redundancy exists around the object ID mention ('Returns a formatted preview' and 'Use the returned object ID'), but the content is all relevant and earned.

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?

Given the tool's 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, use cases, parameter semantics, expected return format, error boundaries, related tools, and how to reference the result. It leaves little ambiguity for an AI agent attempting to invoke the tool.

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?

Although the input schema provides no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage), the description compensates fully by defining pipeline_name as 'Name of the pipeline' and query_id as 'UUID of the search history query', and additionally tells users where to obtain query_id. This exceeds schema-level information.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieves the log entries for a single Haystack pipeline run trace', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the alternative get_pipeline_logs and explaining when each should be used.

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 clearly says when to use this tool (to diagnose warnings/errors emitted during a run) and when to use get_pipeline_logs instead (pipeline startup errors, configuration issues). It also explains how to obtain query_id from list_pipeline_traces or list_pipeline_search_history.

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