Grep Akamai Edge Logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'This is an async operation that polls until logs are available.' This is valuable context for an agent. However, it does not mention other traits like timeouts, failure modes, or how the filters combine. It offers some transparency but is not comprehensive, warranting a 3.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and a brief note on async behavior. Every word contributes to understanding; there is no redundant filler or unnecessary detail. This is model conciseness.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the tool's purpose and async behavior but does not describe the return format, how filters are combined (AND/OR), or any limitations beyond the schema's note on the 6-12 hour range. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter fully documented (e.g., start, end, logType enums). The description simply recaps the filter categories without adding syntax or interaction details. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches edge server logs by edge IP, time range, and filters (CP codes, hostnames, status codes, client IPs, user agents).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling network diagnostics (e.g., dig_from_edge, mtr_from_edge) by focusing on log searching. The title 'Grep Akamai Edge Logs' reinforces the purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—searching edge logs with specific filters—and is distinct from all listed siblings, so there is no competing log-search tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It conveys the use case effectively without exclusions, thus a 4.

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