get_pipeline_service_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state the operation is a read and implies cursor pagination behavior matches pipeline log. However, it omits authorization requirements, log scope, and possible side-effect context, though for a read tool the core mutation risk is addressed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently reuses the sibling's cursor rules instead of repeating them.

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?

With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify full, cursor behavior, and the distinction from pipeline log. The output schema covers return shape, so that omission is acceptable, but parameter semantics and tool-selection context remain under-specified.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at cursor rules; request_id and full are left to their schema names and defaults. The cursor cross-reference is minor but nonzero.

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 opens with an explicit verb and resource: 'Read service logs for a request'. This is clear, but it does not contrast directly with sibling get_pipeline_log beyond the word 'service', so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 only usage guidance is 'Same cursor rules as pipeline log', which addresses pagination mechanics, not when to select this tool over get_pipeline_log or other siblings. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative conditions.

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