victorialogs.field_names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact ('Results are bounded'), but omits the actual limits (limit default 100/max 500, rangeSec default) that matter for a discovery call.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The scope-narrowing hint is placed after the core purpose, which is appropriate ordering.

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 6-parameter, zero-coverage tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains time-range defaults, the limit cap, or what the returned hit counts represent, leaving the agent to guess at invocation semantics.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only names query/filter and alludes to bounded results. start, end, limit, and rangeSec are left completely unexplained by 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Discover available log field names and hit counts'), which clearly differs from siblings like field_values (which returns values). It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

'use query/filter to narrow scope' gives a concrete narrowing hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as field_values or hits, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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