get_log_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only implying the tool is for post-search detail retrieval. It does not disclose any additional traits such as authentication needs or behavior about the returned data, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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: the first clearly states the action, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded. Minimal and efficient.

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?

With a single parameter, high annotation coverage, and an output schema describing the return structure, the description is complete. It states what the tool does and when to use it, and the output schema handles return value details. No significant gaps.

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% (log_id has a clear description: 'Unique log identifier, as returned in a search_logs result's "id" field'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 the tool retrieves complete details for a specific log entry, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'log entry'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_logs (which searches) and get_full_trace (which handles traces, not logs), and the phrase 'after searching' reinforces the intended workflow.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'need full information about a particular log (after searching)'. This implicitly directs the agent to first use search_logs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, 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.