upload-and-analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states 'Upload log files' which may imply a write action, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, stores data, or has any lasting effects. This opacity about behavioral traits warrants a low score.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and outcomes, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description provides sufficient context. It clearly communicates the tool's function and does not require additional detail to be actionable.

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%, as each parameter (date, file_name, file_type, file_content) has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (upload and analyze) and the specific outcomes (anomalies, severity classification, root cause detection), making its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools such as calculate or list-incidents, which focus on other domains.

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 for log analysis but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus the sibling alternatives. It lacks guidance on conditions or exclusions, such as 'use this when you have log files' or 'for incident details, use get-incident-details instead.'

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