logs_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions default behavior (error-focused) and a mode for markers, but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The 24 parameters are not addressed.

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?

While the description is concise (2 sentences), it is under-specified for a tool with 24 parameters. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name. Additional sentences or bullet points for key parameters would improve it.

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 the high parameter count (24), no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, filtering logic, time ranges, or how to use most parameters.

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%, and the description only covers the 'mode' parameter minimally. Over 20 parameters (e.g., pid, tag, lines, keyword) are completely undocumented, providing virtually no semantic guidance beyond the schema.

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 that the tool queries HarmonyOS logs for errors or business markers, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (UI actions/app management) by focusing on log querying.

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 clear context: default mode for errors and explicit guidance on using mode parameter for markers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or reference alternatives, though sibling differentiation is clear.

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