get_run_log

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions that the tool reads a file and supports a prefix filter. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or any auth requirements. The behavior of other parameters (e.g., limit, turn) is unaddressed.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more efficient by also covering key parameters without adding length. It does not waste words but is overly sparse.

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's complexity (7 parameters, 2 required, no schema coverage) and the existence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to choose and configure the tool correctly without extensive schema exploration.

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%. The description adds meaning for only one parameter ('kind' describes prefix matching). The remaining six parameters (project_root, run_id, turn, limit, source, since_mono_ms) are not explained. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Read events.jsonl') and describes a specific filter capability (prefix match on 'kind'). This gives a clear sense of the tool's function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_run_report or list_runs.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., compare_runs, get_run_status). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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