make_get_dlq_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool retrieves historical input/output values behind a failed execution, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, possible response size, or any permissions needed. This is a minor gap for a 'get' tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the main purpose, provide a concrete use case, and cross-reference the sibling tool. Every phrase earns its place with zero fluff.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema) and sufficient annotations absence, the description covers what the tool does, why to use it, and how to get the ID. It doesn't describe the return structure in detail, but for this level of complexity the guidance is largely 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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter dlq_id is already described as 'The incomplete-execution (DLQ) id from make_list_incomplete'. The description reiterates this context, but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: the data bundle being processed at the moment of a scenario execution failure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing make_list_incomplete and emphasizing the actual input/output values, not just execution status or error messages.

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 context for when to use the tool ('real diagnosis instead of guessing from error messages alone') and implies the prerequisite of calling make_list_incomplete to obtain the dlq_id. While no formal alternative or exclusion is given, the guidance is clear and practically useful.

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