getJobLogContent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations: it states it downloads log content but doesn't disclose what 'log content' entails, potential errors (e.g., if job not found), or auth requirements. With annotations covering safety as a read operation, the bar is lower; the description provides sufficient basic context but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter GET-like tool.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It fully explains the return content ('Log content') and purpose. The only missing piece could be mentioning that the job must be completed or the format of the log, but those are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter jobId, including a detailed description that explains its origin and how to use it for polling. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about jobId beyond what the schema states. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the tool downloads log content for a specified job. It uses a specific verb ('Downloads') and resource ('Log content'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'getJobResultFileContent' which likely downloads result files. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or elaborate on the distinction beyond the description.

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 in the context of a job that has completed or produced logs. The schema description for jobId in the input schema adds context about polling getJob for completion. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like getJobResultFileContent or getJob, nor any exclusions. The context is clear for a job-related download tool.

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