get_action_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' and 'details/log' clearly indicate a read operation and describe the returned content. However, it does not mention potential size of logs, authorization requirements, or any edge-case behavior such as truncated output.

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 efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource, and includes only the most relevant distinguishing detail: the full build/deploy log. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and the key detail that the log is included. More structural detail about the return shape would help but is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 schema already documents the only parameter well, including its origin ('Action ID from list_actions'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 ('deploy action details'), and adds clarifying scope with 'full build/deploy log'. It is clearly distinguishable from list_actions in intent, though it does not explicitly name its sibling for contrast.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided in the description. The only contextual hint is the parameter description 'Action ID from list_actions', which implies a sequencing relationship but does not explain when to prefer this tool over list_actions or other inspection tools.

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