query_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 that the tool fuses results via Reciprocal Rank Fusion, returns ranked chunks, and includes provenance metadata (source file, line range, time span, levels, trace ids). This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, as it tells the agent what to expect in the response shape. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only, but given no annotations this is a decent effort.

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 compact: two sentences plus a brief list. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a clear list of metadata fields. No fluff or redundant phrasing. It earns its place by adding valuable context without being verbose.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description does an adequate job explaining the retrieval logic and result metadata, but it lacks critical information about the ticket_id parameter's role and whether the query is natural language or keyword-based. It also does not mention pagination or result limits beyond top_k. For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves some gaps, but it covers the essential behavioral aspects.

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 mentions the 'query' parameter implicitly but does not explain the syntax or meaning of 'ticket_id', 'top_k', or 'query' beyond what the schema provides (name, type, default). The description says 'Retrieval of the most relevant log chunks' which involves the 'query' but does not elaborate on how 'ticket_id' scopes the search (needed pre-requisite). The top_k default is in schema but not contextualized. The description adds some value (provenance metadata) but lacks per-parameter semantics.

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 performs 'Hybrid semantic + keyword (BM25) retrieval of the most relevant log chunks.' It explicitly mentions combining dense vector similarity and BM25 lexical matching, which distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_ticket_logs (data ingestion) and delete_ticket_logs (data deletion). The verb 'query_logs' is specific to retrieval, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the agent needs to retrieve relevant log chunks for a given ticket, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions 'most relevant log chunks' but does not specify conditions like 'use when you need to find logs without knowing exact filters' or contrast with get_log_stats (which likely provides aggregated views). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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