log_volume_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only analysis. It adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: the hours window is capped at the tool's max lookback, and a retention hint is returned only when Loki index stats are available. No pagination, result-size, or failure behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with type/analysis tags, then a compact paragraph on what it returns, then a structured Args list. Every sentence carries information; sizing is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 describe what is produced: ranked high-volume streams, high-cardinality label warnings, and a retention hint. Combined with full per-parameter documentation, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though return shape/limits remain unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does document all three args. It clarifies the selector scopes the analysis (with a concrete example), that hours is a lookback window capped at a max, and that loki_target comes from config with a default when omitted.

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 concrete verb+resource: it ranks top streams by volume, flags high-cardinality labels, and adds a retention hint. The [READ][analysis] tag and the specific output set distinguish it from generic Loki tools like loki_query. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it replaces or contrasts with.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer this is for volume/cardinality investigation, but nothing tells it to prefer this over loki_query, loki_labels, or log_error_burst_rca.

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