get_sample_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving a 'single sample log entry,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and intent without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Get a single sample log entry') and clearly states the goal ('to see the structure and available fields'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, return format, or how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to cover these gaps, but it meets a minimum viable level for a basic read operation.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'environment' parameter with its enum values and description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately without needing extra details from the description.

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's purpose: 'Get a single sample log entry to see the structure and available fields.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('sample log entry'), and intent ('to see the structure and available fields'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_logs' or 'search_by_field', which might also retrieve log data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implies usage by stating the tool is for seeing 'structure and available fields,' suggesting it's used for exploration or understanding log formats. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_logs' or other search tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is clear in context but lacks detailed comparative advice.

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