get_execution_logs

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

With readOnlyHint: true, the description adds context beyond the annotation by clarifying that no approval is needed and enumerating the returned proto fields. This gives the agent useful behavioral and data-level information without contradicting the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The additional details about proto fields and approval status are useful and concise, with no extraneous wording.

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 has an output schema and readOnly annotation, so the description need not explain return structure. It covers the main purpose and added context, but it misses parameter semantics, which would make it fully complete for a tool with two parameters and zero schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the purpose of action_id or page_size. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description lists only output fields, leaving input parameters ambiguous.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'OliveTin execution history (LogEntry records)', which is specific and unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like get_execution_status and list_olivetin_actions by naming the domain as execution history.

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 use for retrieving execution history but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. 'No approval needed' provides an authorization note but does not offer comparative usage guidance.

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