get-actor-run-log

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what the tool retrieves and hints at the type of run states (live vs failed), but it does not disclose behavior like whether logs are truncated, how pagination works, or any side effects. It is functional but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function and the key usage context. Every part adds value, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides enough context to choose and invoke it correctly. A bit more detail about the return format or when to prefer sibling tools would be helpful, but this is adequate.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely frames the tool's purpose.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('recent log lines for a specific Actor run'), and clarifies its intended use for live progress or debugging failed runs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-actor-run.

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 communicates when the tool is useful: to inspect live collection progress or diagnose a failed run. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name a sibling to use instead, but the context is clear enough for an agent to match its intent to this tool.

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