linux_log_parser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output (sortable table, filter, aggregate, CSV/JSON export) but lacks specifics on error handling, side effects, or limitations. Adequate for basic understanding but not detailed.

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 paragraph that conveys core info but includes a 'Menu ID:' prefix and references describe_tool, adding some noise. It is functional but could be more streamlined.

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 3 required params with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for confident invocation. It relies on another tool for full guidance, indicating a significant completeness gap.

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 has 0% description coverage for its 3 required parameters. The description does not explain the parameters (text, format, operation) or their valid values. It mentions log types generally but fails to map them to the format parameter.

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 identifies the tool as a log parser for specific formats (Apache Combined/Common, nginx, syslog RFC 3164/5424, JSON Lines, systemd journal), producing a sortable table. Among sibling tools (conversion, crypto, network, etc.), this purpose is distinct and well-defined.

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 when to use: when you have logs in those formats. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. It directs to describe_tool for full guidance, which partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.

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