Get Agent Tool Logs

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the phrase 'combination' to indicate all four IDs are required together, which is a minor scoping note but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response shape or error conditions.

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—'Fetch agent tool logs for a trace/run/log/feature combination.' It is succinct, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple read-only fetch with four straightforward string parameters and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. However, the term 'feature' is ambiguous and it is not clarified whether the call returns a list or a single object, so a bit more context would push it to a 5.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (Trace id, Run id, Log id, Feature name), giving 100% schema coverage. The description's mention of 'trace/run/log/feature combination' essentially restates the required parameter set without introducing meaningful semantics beyond the schema's required array, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'agent tool logs,' scoped by a 'trace/run/log/feature combination.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like lyzr_ops_get_trace_run or lyzr_ops_get_grouped_logs, which target different levels of log/trace detail.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_ops_get_trace_run or lyzr_ops_get_grouped_logs. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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