start_log_monitoring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says monitoring is real-time but omits authentication needs, duration, resource impact, how to stop monitoring, what storeHistory does, and any return or lifecycle behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions.

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 monitoring-start tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented boolean parameter, the description is too sparse. It omits lifecycle, stopping, and storage context that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 documents topics and address but leaves storeHistory completely undocumented, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'contract events/logs'. With 67% schema coverage and one undocumented boolean, the definition does not adequately clarify parameter usage.

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 'start monitoring' and resource 'contract events/logs' with the qualifier 'real-time'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as start_block_monitoring or start_pending_tx_monitoring, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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