Get Log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what the log details include (id, created_at, endpoint, method, etc.). It does not over-explain, and the return fields provide transparency beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Purpose, Returns, and When to use. It is compact, front-loads the essential purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 single-parameter get tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, lists the return fields, and gives usage scenarios. Despite no output schema, the return field list compensates, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 fully describes the sole parameter logId as 'The Log ID to retrieve' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 gets detailed information about a specific API request log, including full request and response bodies. It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('API request log'), and distinguishes itself from list-logs by focusing on a single log's detailed contents.

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?

It provides a clear 'When to use' section with concrete user intents and phrasings, such as debugging a specific API call or inspecting a request. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as mentioning list-logs for listing logs, leaving a small gap.

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