Get Grouped Activity Logs

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already communicate the read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds the notion of 'grouped' logs and the required combination, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, output format, or error handling. It is consistent with the annotations, adding minimal behavioral context.

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 immediately communicates the action and target. It contains no redundant or vague wording, making it highly efficient.

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 straightforward read tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain what 'grouped' means, the response structure, or any access prerequisites. Given five parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail would help, but it's not severely lacking.

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 coverage is 100% with straightforward descriptions for all parameters (trace_id, run_id, log_id, page, limit). The description's phrase 'trace/run/log combination' reinforces that the three IDs must be used together, but it adds little beyond what the schema already conveys. The schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('grouped activity logs') with a specific scope ('for a trace/run/log combination'). It provides enough specificity to understand what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling logging tools like lyzr_ops_get_agent_tool_logs.

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 when a trace/run/log combination is needed, but it offers no explicit comparison to alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It's not misleading, but it relies on the agent to infer when to use this over other log/trace tools.

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