log_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions structured queries and filtering but says nothing about authentication requirements (such as the api_key parameter), result limits, output format, or whether the operation is read-only. It also promises level/time filtering without explaining how those map to the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core action and filtering dimensions without waste. It is concise and scannable, though the em-dash expansion includes somewhat misleading filter terms.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits what api_key is for, how max_results interacts with results, how regex queries combine with context_lines, and what shape the search results take. An agent would need to inspect elsewhere or make assumptions before invoking 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 60%, and the description adds only vague hints like 'message pattern' and 'context' rather than explicit parameter guidance. The api_key and max_results parameters remain completely unexplained, and 'filter by level, time' does not correspond to any direct schema field, making parameter understanding harder rather than clearer.

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 identifies the operation ('Search through log files') and lists key filter dimensions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_analyze, log_recommend, and log_correlate. However, it mentions filtering by 'level' and 'time' even though those are not explicit input schema properties, which creates minor ambiguity about how those filters are expressed.

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 the tool is for searching log files, which provides a clear use context. It does not mention when not to use it, or how it compares to closely related siblings such as log_analyze, log_recommend, and log_correlate, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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