search_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that times are normalized to microseconds, filter_query supports SQL-like equality that is normalized automatically, and the meaning of 'total' differs from typical log record counts. It implies the tool is read-only but does not explicitly state idempotency or side effects.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with purpose. It uses multiple sentences but each adds value. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is still clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), and moderate complexity, the description covers the critical parameters for usage but omits many optional ones. This is sufficient for basic use but incomplete for full agent autonomy.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only 4 out of 12 parameters (stream_name, fields, filter_query, start_time, end_time) with meaningful details. Parameters like size, offset, keyword, regions, timeout, no_count, and include_raw are not mentioned at all, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 it retrieves distinct field values for a stream over a time range, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('field values for a stream'). It includes examples, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like search_logs or search_around.

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 provides specific usage details: how to specify stream_name (raw path, no quoting), fields (comma-separated), filter_query syntax with an example, and time units. It explains the meaning of 'total' in this context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_logs, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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