Detect cross-stream telemetry anomalies and client crash signatures

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description nonetheless adds genuinely new context that the operation 'does not interrupt background loggers or active streams' and works across concurrently recording streams. It stops short of describing cost, latency, or result volume for a cross-stream scan.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scan scope and results. The trailing 'Behavior: Safe and read-only' slightly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the only redundancy, but the side-effect clause in the same sentence earns its place.

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, the description usefully characterizes the kinds of anomalies returned, and the two optional parameters are fully specified in the schema. The remaining gap is the precondition that WAMP/CDP/disk loggers must already be recording for a cross-stream scan to yield anything, which is only hinted at by 'active'.

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% and both parameters carry ranges, defaults, and enum values in the schema itself, so the description owes little here. It adds no extra meaning about how windowSeconds interacts across streams or how severityFilter maps to the listed anomaly classes, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Scans', 'detects') and enumerates the exact resource scope (LCU WAMP recordings, CDP console logs, network requests, client disk logs) plus the concrete findings returned (exception bursts, 500/503 clusters, WebSocket disconnects, fatal crashes). It never names or contrasts a sibling such as lol_forensics_correlate or lol_logs_tail, so the boundary against neighbors must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by the scanning/detection framing, and the mention of 'active' streams hints that recordings must be in progress, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance relative to lol_forensics_correlate or lol_logs_tail.

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