fusion_job_log

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details that annotations cannot convey: file contents are not returned inline because logs can be megabytes, and passing save_to triggers writing files to a directory and returning paths.

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 tightly organized: a one-line purpose, an explicit when-to-use instruction, a critical behavior warning, and a clean args list. Every sentence carries useful information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 modest complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: when to call, what each parameter means, what happens with save_to, and why logs are not inlined. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description is the only source of semantic meaning for all three parameters. It fully explains request_id, defines the two file_type values ('log' vs 'out'), and clarifies that save_to is an optional output directory with side effects.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Fetch') and a concrete resource ('a finished job's log or output'), and ties it to a clear diagnostic purpose ('WHY it failed'). This distinguishes it sharply from sibling tools like fusion_job_status, which reports job state rather than retrieving logs.

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 an explicit trigger condition: call this whenever fusion_job_status reports ERROR. It also explains why this step is necessary, turning a simple feature description into a decision rule an agent can act on.

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