get_full_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: it fetches full untruncated lines and uses timestamp+keyword for locating. Yet it omits details like return format, behavior when the line is not found, tolerance/edge cases, or auth/precondition requirements. It is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the main action and contains no filler. The conditional workflow is dense but readable; it could be split into clearer steps, but it is still appropriately sized for the purpose.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the central use case but does not explain four undocumented parameters (labels, project, requestId, datasourceUid) nor the return value shape or failure behavior. For the tool's complexity, the description is noticeably incomplete.

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 56%, so the description must add some parameter meaning. It does add value for timestamp (must come from the time field of query_logs/trace_context) and keyword (used for precise positioning, recommend a unique feature like order number). However, it leaves labels, project, requestId, and datasourceUid unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states the action: retrieve the complete raw log line without truncation. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact trigger—when query_logs/trace_context returns a line with a '(截断 N 字符)' marker—and the required input (time as timestamp plus keyword). This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: call this tool only when query_logs/trace_context indicates truncation. It also tells the agent how to construct the call (use the row's time as timestamp and pair with keyword). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for non-truncated cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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