log_search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive potential, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal to convey behavioral transparency.

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 short sentence, but it is underspecified and lacks structure for a tool with 4 parameters. While it is concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it unhelpful.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, filtering logic, or any behavioral nuances needed for effective use.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'level' has a description in the schema). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It fails to explain the meaning or constraints of parameters like 'keyword', 'lines', or 'channel', which are critical for correct invocation.

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 searches for keywords in project logs. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'log_search_system', which also searches logs but presumably system logs. The verb 'search' and resource 'project logs' are specific enough but lack sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log_search_system' or 'log_list'. The description does not include any context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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