evolution_get_log

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait not covered by annotations: 'Data is in-memory (resets on server restart).' This adds context about persistence and freshness that annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) do not provide. It also specifies the return scope ('from this session'), which is useful behavioral information. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary action, the second details the return contents and a critical caveat. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence contributes value without redundancy. This is a model of concise structuring.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists to define the return structure, and annotations cover safety behavior, the description provides all necessary contextual information: what the tool returns and the in-memory limitation. It is complete for a simple log retrieval tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is trivially complete, and the description need not elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to invent parameter details. It adds no parameter-level information, but none is needed.

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 function: 'Get the log of past evolution runs from this session.' It specifies the resource (evolution runs log) and the action (get), and the additional details about returned content (graduated strategies, graveyard, token usage) make its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like evolution_evolve_strategy or evolution_run_backtest, which perform different actions.

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 when to use the tool (when you need the history of evolution runs) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It notes the session-scoped nature, which is a usage hint, but lacks direct comparison to other retrieval tools like get_strategy_performance or get_agent_state. This meets the 'implied usage' level but not explicit guidance.

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