Where Them Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only a mild behavioral claim ('Every' suggests an exhaustive, unpaginated result set) and says nothing about result size, limits, or error behavior for an unknown slug.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource and scope before the input provenance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and input provenance. It could say a bit more about the returned location shape or behavior for an invalid slug, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does supply the key semantic: the slug is the identifier returned by search_log_locations. It does not describe the slug format or an example, but the provenance is the most important missing piece and it is provided.

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 states a precise resource and scope ('Every log location for one app'), which is more than a restatement of the title, and it names the sibling search_log_locations as the upstream source of the slug. Differentiation from that sibling is present but implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

It makes the workflow dependency clear: the slug comes from search_log_locations, so an agent knows this is the drill-down step after a search. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of an alternative path, 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the return shape ('each app's log paths by platform'), which is helpful context, but says nothing about result-count limits (limit max 25) or truncation behavior on a search endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the matching caveat and return note.

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 no output schema, the description does state what comes back (log paths per platform), and annotations cover safety. The main omissions are the limit/pagination semantics and any relationship to the sibling tool.

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 only 67%, and the description compensates meaningfully by explaining that 'query' matches app names and aliases rather than vendor names, which is not in the schema. It also ties results to the platform filter. The limit parameter's behavior remains unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Find where an application writes its log files', and adds a distinguishing scope note ('matches app names and aliases, not vendor names'). However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_app_log_locations, so the agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

It gives useful matching guidance (aliases such as 'teams', 'zoom', 'docker'; not vendor names), which implies how to phrase a query. But it offers no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and does not route the agent to or away from the sibling tool.

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