vela_get_workflow_logs

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by exposing the underlying API endpoint and noting that the step name must come from record details, which implies a dependency on another resource. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and includes the corresponding API for reference. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The tool is a straightforward read-only logs fetch, and the description covers its essential aspect (step dependency) along with the API endpoint. It is slightly terse but adequate for a tool in a well-structured context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, each with descriptive text. The description supplements this by explicitly highlighting that step is required and sourced from record details, and by showing the API's query parameter context. This adds useful meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: viewing logs for a specific step in a workflow execution record. It uses a specific verb+resource+scope structure (view workflow step logs) and is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which are list/get operations for other entities.

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 a clear prerequisite: the step parameter is required and its name should be obtained from the record details first. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, no siblings serve the same purpose, so the contextual guidance is sufficient. This is a clear usage context with a practical hint.

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