log_volume_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly includes '[READ][analysis]' indicating a safe read-only operation, mentions a cap on lookback hours, and notes the retention hint is 'when available'. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear title line, a one-paragraph summary, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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 3-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to use it, and the nature of results (ranking, warnings, retention hint). It could optionally describe the exact output structure, but that isn't strictly necessary given the clarity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: selector, hours, and loki_target, with examples and constraints. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Top streams by volume + high-cardinality (high-churn) label warnings' and explains it ranks streams, flags labels with many distinct values, and adds retention hints. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like loki_query or log_error_burst_rca.

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 usage is implied through the analysis-focused description, but there are no explicit when-to-use or alternative selection instructions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of loki_query' or list exclusions. However, the function is clear enough that an agent could infer its purpose.

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