Describe a data source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that no message rows or anomalies are returned, and that path resolution and runtime/schema support depend on the selected service. This helps set expectations and avoid misinvocation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the sibling alternative follows immediately, and the exclusions and service dependency are packed into the final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details need not be in the description. Purpose, workflow ordering, exclusions, and server-side behavior are all covered. The only gap is parameter semantics (especially args), which prevents a perfect score, but the overall context is strong for a simple read-only inspection tool.

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 for both parameters. It only mentions that 'Paths are resolved on the Bagel server', which hints at the path parameter but does not explain its format or semantics. The optional args parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a clear gap for a required-parameter tool.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a robotics, drone, or IoT log first'. It clearly states what the tool returns ('source metadata, available topics, and instructions') and differentiates from the sibling describe_topic by prescribing it as the next step for field schemas. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool 'first' and directs the agent to 'Use describe_topic next for field schemas before SQL', giving an exact sequence and alternative. It also states exclusions ('Does not return message rows or detect anomalies') and notes server-side path resolution, making the invocation context unambiguous.

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