Get Actor run log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds meaningful context by revealing that the log contains non-fatal per-board or per-page failures, not just a generic log dump. This helps the agent interpret partial-success scenarios, though it doesn't describe output format or access requirements.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then immediately provides the key use case and the nature of the log content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the log contains and when to check it, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. It doesn't detail the return format, but for a log-reading tool with a tail parameter, the expected line-based output is reasonably inferable.

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 50%: the tail parameter is described in the schema, but runId is not. The description does not compensate by explaining runId or adding meaning to either parameter. It only implicitly refers to 'a run,' leaving the required parameter's semantics underspecified.

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 and resource: 'Read the log of a run.' It further differentiates the tool by explaining the log contains per-board or per-page failures that did not fail the whole run, which clearly separates it from sibling run-focused tools like get-actor-run or abort-actor-run.

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 use case: 'check it when a run succeeded but returned fewer items than you expected.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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