query_loki_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool executes queries and retrieves data but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it's read-only or mutative, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned results. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It front-loads the key action and outcome, making it easy to parse, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits), usage guidance, and details on return values. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving the AI agent with insufficient operational understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'logql' is the core query parameter and 'datasourceUid' identifies the target. No additional syntax, format examples, or constraints are provided beyond what's in 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 specific action ('Executes a LogQL query'), target resource ('against a Loki datasource'), and outcome ('to retrieve log entries or metric values'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_loki_stats and query_prometheus by focusing on LogQL queries for log retrieval rather than statistics or Prometheus metrics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like query_loki_stats (for statistics) or query_prometheus (for Prometheus queries), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid datasource UID or appropriate permissions.

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