get_operation_log

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stating the tool returns recent write operations from the journal, which implies a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose ordering, scoping, or account-filter behavior explicitly.

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 compact phrase with no filler, and the core meaning is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity sacrifices useful usage and parameter details.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits when to use it, what the parameters do, and any log-specific behavior. An agent could guess the basics, but the description alone is not complete enough for confident selection and correct parameter usage.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or interaction of 'limit' and 'account' beyond their names and defaults. Since the schema itself provides no descriptions, the tool description needed to compensate but did not.

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 identifies a read operation returning the most recent write operations from the journal, and the tool name reinforces the resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_accounts and apply_write, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus search_actions or other siblings. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions; the intended use is only implied by the word 'latest'.

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