search_server_log

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It states the search action but does not disclose whether it returns full matching lines, whether the search is case-sensitive, how the limit affects the search, or what happens when no matches are found. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes: the action, the resource, and illustrative keyword examples.

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 is simple and the schema covers both parameters, so the description is nearly adequate. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., matching lines vs. counts), the fact that only the last `limit` lines are scanned, or any guidance on fallback tools if the keyword is not found.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query and limit. The description adds value by giving concrete example values for query ('Error', 'Crash', 'Failed'), which helps an agent understand what kind of keywords are expected.

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 states a specific action ('Search for specific keywords') and a specific resource ('server_log.txt'), with concrete example keywords. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling read_server_log, which reads the log rather than filtering by keyword.

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: use this tool when you need to find specific terms like 'Error', 'Crash', or 'Failed' in the server log. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over read_server_log or other log-related siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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