log_analyzer_correlate

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context that the tool returns correlated events with before/after information and specifies constraints on window_seconds and max_anchors, which enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the core functionality. While detailed, it could be slightly more concise, but it earns its length by providing necessary constraints and output details.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters with ranges, defaults, and constraints) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, all parameters with semantics, and return format. Sibling tools are diverse, and this description fully characterizes the tool's behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: anchor_pattern is a regex, window_seconds has a range and default, max_anchors has a range and default, and response_format accepts markdown or json. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 tool correlates events around anchor points in a log file, which is a specific verb-resource combination. Among sibling tools focused on log analysis, 'correlate' stands out as distinct from search, summarize, or scan, making it easily distinguishable.

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 usage for correlation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like log_analyzer_search or log_analyzer_summarize. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose.

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