graylog_diagnose_code_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a two-step behavior (correlate, then expand) and notes that a business profile changes behavior ('adds stage patterns and correlation keys without changing this tool'). However, it doesn't explain what 'expand discovered trace keys' means operationally, any side effects, or how the tool interacts with Graylog. It adds some value but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage timing and input guidance, and the third adds a profile nuance. Every sentence earns its place; the description is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, but does have an output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose and the most important input semantics, yet it omits guidance on time range parameters, streams, and limit, which are common but not fully self-explanatory in context. Given moderate complexity and an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 explicitly explains the meaning of log_literals ('stable literal text from those statements') and identifiers ('known values such as studentExamId, taskId, requestNo, or traceId'), and hints at profile. However, it leaves parameters like from_time, to_time, range_seconds, limit, and streams undocumented, relying on their names alone. The description adds value for core parameters but not for all eight.

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 action ('Correlate code log literals and runtime identifiers, then expand discovered trace keys') that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_messages or list_profiles. It names the resource (code logs, trace keys) and the scope (correlate + expand), making it unmistakable what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after reading relevant source and finding log statements.' It also tells the caller what to pass (stable literal text, known identifiers) and mentions the profile behavior. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context given is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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