ds_get_task_log

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 pagination support, default limit, and the return structure, which are useful behavioral traits. It does not mention potential side effects (though 'fetch' implies read-only), error behavior, or permissions, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, an Args list with clear explanations, and a Returns object. Every line adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to get the required ID, pagination parameters, and a return structure (compensating for lack of output schema). It does not explain edge cases or the meaning of the 'hint' field, but for invocation purposes it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: task_instance_id is explained as the ID from ds_list_task_instances, skip_line_num as skipping first N lines for pagination, and limit as max lines with a default of 1000. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a task execution log, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'task execution log'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ds_get_task_detail (which fetches task details) and ds_get_latest_failure_log (which fetches failure logs), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context by specifying that task_instance_id comes from ds_list_task_instances, and explains pagination via skip_line_num and limit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling alternatives like ds_get_latest_failure_log, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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