analyze_log

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and leaves significant gaps: it does not state that this is a read-only analysis, does not say what happens when no ELF is supplied (degraded symbolisation?), and does not describe the returned findings. It adds useful behavioural detail about what patterns are detected, but that is the extent of it.

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?

A single dense sentence with the detection scope front-loaded and the symbolisation capability trailing; nothing is padded. The long parenthetical of fault names is long but each term earns its place by defining detection coverage.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the analysis intent but omits return-shape expectations and the role of project_dir. It is minimally sufficient to decide to call it, not sufficient to predict what comes back.

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 33% — only 'text' is documented, while 'elf' and 'project_dir' carry no description. The sentence 'symbolise backtraces against the ELF' does give meaningful semantics for the 'elf' parameter (it is the symbol source), but 'project_dir' remains unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is partial.

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 gives specific verbs (Find, symbolise) against concrete resources (crash patterns in a log, backtraces against an ELF), and the enumerated fault types (Guru Meditation, TWDT, brownout) make it unmistakably a crash-analysis tool. It differentiates itself implicitly from capture_log and read_coredump, but never names a sibling or states the boundary with decode_addresses, which also deals with symbol addresses.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite sibling tools decode_addresses and read_coredump overlapping on the symbolisation and crash-inspection territory. An agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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