search_log_all_records

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 'with context' which hints at the context_before/after parameters, but doesn't explain what 'context' means, how results are returned, whether there are rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'search' entails (e.g., regex, exact match). This is a significant gap for a search tool with 5 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating key features (e.g., 'Searches all log records. Optional filters: scope, content patterns. Includes context lines.'), but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It hints at some parameters but doesn't fully explain their semantics or usage. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the lack of behavioral and parameter details leaves gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'scope and content patterns' and 'with context', which loosely maps to some parameters (scope, log_content_patterns_override, context_before/after), but doesn't explain what 'scope' means, what 'log_dirs_override' does, or how patterns work. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('all log records'), and mentions optional filtering by scope and content patterns. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_log_first_n_records' by specifying 'all' records, but doesn't fully differentiate from other search siblings like 'search_log_time_based' in terms of when to use each.

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 like 'search_log_first_n_records', 'search_log_last_n_records', or 'search_log_time_based'. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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