get_log_stack_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the function without mentioning whether it is read-only, expensive, or requires specific permissions. No side effects or limitations are noted.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks important details that could be included without verbosity. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but could be more informative while staying concise.

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 should explain the return format (e.g., 'returns file path and line number'). The current description is too brief to fully prepare the agent for the tool's response, especially given the lack of annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (requestId and logIndex) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters, so it provides baseline value.

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 'Get source location for a log entry' clearly states the verb (Get) and the resource (source location for a log entry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_logs (which retrieves log entries) and get_query_stack_trace (for queries). However, it could be more specific about what 'source location' means (e.g., file path and line number).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_logs or get_query_stack_trace. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or examples, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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