get_service_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions, pagination, or the nature of the returned logs. It provides only the basic action without additional 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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The action verb and object are front-loaded, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves out what the returned logs will include (structure, size, ordering). For a simple tool this is acceptable, but an agent would benefit from knowing the response format or any constraints (e.g., time range) to fully anticipate the call.

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 each parameter (project, service, region) already described at the schema level. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies given the schema's adequacy.

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 states a specific verb ('Gets') and a distinct resource ('Logs and Error Messages for a specific Cloud Run service'). It clearly implies this is for a single service, which differentiates it from list-style siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_service or list_services. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any exclusionary or alternative routing.

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