Search logs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description's search operation aligns with that. The description adds the context of filtering by project or deployment, but does not disclose pagination behavior or query semantics, which is a meaningful gap beyond the annotation.

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 sentence, making it concise and front-loaded with the main verb. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, though it does not waste words.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many log-related siblings, yet the description does not explain query semantics, result structure, or pagination. This leaves an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'by project or deployment,' which relates to project_id/project_name and deployment_id, but leaves the required 'q' and pagination params (limit, cursor_id, cursor_time) completely unexplained.

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 'Search SuperDev logs by project or deployment,' which clearly identifies the verb (search), resource (logs), and scope (by project or deployment). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like tail_logs or get_log_context, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention when to prefer search_logs over tail_logs, follow_logs, or other log-reading tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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