aem_logs_search

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose pagination and regex-based searching, and 'Search' implies a read operation, but it does not mention authentication needs, result format, limits, or multi-instance behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly richer, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what a page of results looks like, how pagination is navigated, or how multiple instances/credentials factor in. An agent would need external knowledge to fully invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only summarizing that regex and pagination are involved, which is the appropriate baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('AEM logs'), and key behaviors (regex patterns, log types, pagination). It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which cover bundles, components, configurations, health checks, and Groovy execution rather than log search.

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 usage context: an agent should use this when searching AEM logs with regex across log types and paging results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for this purpose.

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