get_scenario_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets logs for failed scenarios, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. Missing details on data volume or scope of logs returned.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides minimal but adequate context. It does not describe return format, pagination, or any limitations. More details would improve completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as usage examples or parameter relationships. Baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 retrieves detailed run logs and error messages, specifically for failed scenarios. It distinguishes from siblings like get_scenario_run_history and get_scenario_info by focusing on logs for failures. However, the qualifier 'for failed scenarios' could imply it only works for failures, which might need clarification.

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 implies usage when logs or errors for a failed scenario are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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