diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Parse logs'. It does not mention whether this reads local files, requires an installed game, produces a summary or raw output, or has side effects. The safety profile and operational behavior are left entirely unspecified.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action concisely, though it is terse and could include more useful context without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool. Missing details include what input values are valid beyond the enum, what output to expect, and what prerequisites exist.

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 0%, so the description needs to explain the parameters. It indirectly maps to the action enum by mentioning 'compat or shader logs', but it gives no meaning for 'appid' or 'lines', leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb ('Parse') and a clear resource ('Proton compat or shader logs'), making the tool's core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'proton', but the log-parsing focus is distinct enough for basic selection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'proton' or 'game_info'. The action enum hints at two log types, but the description does not explain what scenario calls for parsing these logs or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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