inspect-logs-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search/filter functionality and mentions wildcard support, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-like 'Args' section. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the 'Args' formatting could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks output information, behavioral context, and sibling differentiation. For a search tool with rich filtering, more guidance on result format and usage context would improve completeness.

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 must fully compensate. It provides detailed parameter semantics beyond the schema: it explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Filter by task name'), provides format examples (ISO dates, wildcards), and includes default/limit values for 'limit'. This adds substantial value over the bare schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search and filter evaluation logs by various criteria.' This specifies the verb (search/filter) and resource (evaluation logs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tool_list_logs' or 'tool_get_eval_summary', which likely handle similar log data but with different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tool_list_logs' or 'tool_get_eval_summary'. It lists filtering capabilities but doesn't explain scenarios where this search tool is preferred over other log-related tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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