Get Flow Execution Logs

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses critical behaviors: log contents, the possibility of empty logs for simple executions or NONE reporting level, and that errors/warnings are always logged. This is adequate for understanding the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by log contents and sibling relationship. The second paragraph adds a crucial note about empty logs. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers log contents and edge cases (empty logs, reporting level). It implies the need for a context_id from other tools, which is sufficient. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or limit behavior beyond the parameter description, but still fairly complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context that the logs come from sys_flow_log, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it retrieves flow execution log entries, specifying the source table (sys_flow_log) and what the logs include (error messages, debug output, cancellation reasons). It mentions using it alongside get_flow_execution_details, but does not explicitly distinguish from other log-related siblings.

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 provides when to use this tool (to get the full picture alongside get_flow_execution_details) and notes important context: logs may be empty for simple success or when reporting level is NONE, but errors are always logged. This helps the agent anticipate missing results, though it lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives like query_syslog.

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