octri_query_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: results are raw and unaggregated (no dedup/grouping). It says nothing about retention window, ordering, default limit, or pagination behavior, which matter for a log query.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the selecting condition. No waste.

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?

A 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to fill gaps on limits, time range semantics, and result shape; the description only covers purpose and one usage cue.

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 40% (only 'query' and 'project_id' documented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — level, limit, and range are left entirely unexplained. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 the resource concretely ('raw production events, unaggregated') and implicitly the action (query logs), and it differentiates itself from the grouped-view path an agent would otherwise reach for. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('Use when an issue's grouped view is not enough') plus a concrete example ('every occurrence across releases'), which routes the agent away from grouped/aggregated alternatives. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (e.g. octri_get_issue) explicitly.

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