query_log_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'High-speed' hints at performance but doesn't disclose behaviors like file-size limits, memory constraints, error handling on malformed SQL, or whether the tool is read-only. The max_rows default via schema suggests bloat protection, but behavioral traits beyond perf aren't meaningfully 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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the core capability with formats listed. Efficient and zero-waste, though it could be slightly expanded with usage guidance without losing its tightness.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return formats. The tool is moderate complexity (SQL query execution). The description covers the what and the formats but misses operational context like load limits, safety guarantees, or typical use patterns. Acceptable but not rich.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value: it says 'high-speed' and names supported formats, but doesn't add syntax/format details beyond the schema. Max_rows description in schema covers bloat protection. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Executes high-speed DuckDB SQL queries directly against log files'. It names the formats (JSONL, CSV, Parquet) and the engine (DuckDB), distinguishing it from sibling code-inspection and patching tools. Purpose is specific and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any querying sibling since none exist.

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 implies when to use it (querying log files with SQL) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. It doesn't address prerequisites like DuckDB availability or whether this is for ad-hoc analysis vs structured reporting. Adequate but not explicit.

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