log_summary

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 does add real behavioral context by disclosing the scope of the report and noting that warnings/errors are drawn from both console and decoded events, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it hint at cost, log-size limits, or that a large log may be summarized coarsely.

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?

It is a single tight sentence fragment with a good front-loaded headline ('What happened in one flight') followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration. No sentence is wasted, though the trailing parenthetical feels like a compressed afterthought.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description does convey the full content scope. What is missing for a tool in this crowded sibling set is routing guidance and any behavioral note about read-only safety or log-size handling, leaving the definition adequate but with clear 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 100% and the single 'log' parameter is fully documented there, including the accepted path forms and the 'latest'/'latest-N' defaults. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior or defaulting, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 makes clear this produces a high-level summary of a single flight log and enumerates the specific content domains covered (PX4 version, arming, takeoff/landing, mode changes, failsafes, estimator trouble, warnings/errors). However, it is phrased as a content listing rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like flight_timeline, estimator_health, or log_messages.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of any alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling names alone whether to call log_summary or flight_timeline first, which is exactly the decision guidance the description should supply.

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