get_fix_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, as it retrieves a record without any mutating language (no 'create', 'update', 'delete'). It also reveals that it includes both successful and unsuccessful fixes, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose potential performance implications (e.g., large logs) or whether it might be expensive to call. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 moderately concise, with an initial one-sentence summary followed by an 'Args' section. However, the initial summary repeats the tool name 'fix log' and could be tightened. The Args section is redundant given the schema, adding little value. There is no excessive fluff, but the structure could be improved by front-loading the exact purpose and why the sweep argument matters.

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 an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, which is fine. The tool is simple with a single parameter, and the description covers its purpose and key attributes. However, there is no mention of what kind of data the log contains in terms of structure (though output schema covers that) or any potential performance considerations. It lacks guidance on what to do with the returned log, such as referencing it for further actions. Overall, it's sufficient but not complete for an agent that might need to decide whether to call it.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'sweep' parameter, and the description merely says 'The sweep name.' This adds minimal context beyond the schema—it clarifies it's a name but doesn't explain what a sweep is or how to find valid sweep names. However, the description is inherently tied to the parameter, and the overall description's first sentence indirectly explains the parameter's context. For a single simple string parameter, the description provides some semantic value, but it's not extensive.

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+resource ('get fix log') and defines scope ('every reasoned fix attempted in a sweep'), which is somewhat clear. However, it relies heavily on the tool name, and could be more distinctively differentiated from siblings like 'get_parked_failure' and 'apply_reasoned_fix'. The description does mention 'successful or not' and lists key aspects, but doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools.

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 mentions the argument 'sweep' but provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any exclusion criteria or suggest sibling tools. The usage guidelines are essentially absent, only implying it's for retrieving fix logs for a named sweep.

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