victorialogs.hits

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/safe, and the description adds real behavioral context: the default 60s step, the max 10000 bucket cap, the default one-hour window, groupsLimit default 20 with max 100, and the overflow-group behavior. It stops short of describing auth needs or the exact response shape.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and limits, with no filler. It is information-packed but readable; a slight risk of overload from stacking bucket limits and group limits in one sentence.

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 partially compensates by explaining bucket counts, top groups, and the overflow group. Still, for an 8-parameter aggregation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the query/filter syntax and time-range parameters are meaningfully under-explained.

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 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains stepSec, groupsLimit, fields-based grouping, and the default window, but start, end, query, and filter (the actual log-selection inputs) are undocumented in 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 and resource ('Count logs over time') plus the bucketing mechanism, which is clearly distinct from raw-log search. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like search_logs or query_stats, so an agent must infer the distinction from the aggregation semantics 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?

The description describes what the tool produces but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions under which to prefer this over search_logs or query_stats, and no note about prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from 'count ... over time'.

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