scan_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 and it does disclose the return contents per log line. It never states that this is a non-mutating scan, nor mentions cost, limits, or how per-parameter filtering ('contains') interacts with the aggregated warning counts—meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the output-shape statement is front-loaded ahead of the motivating examples. Slightly dense field listing, but every item named is a distinct output column rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description arguably needn't restate return fields, and schema coverage is complete for inputs. The remaining hole is relational: with ten siblings that also touch logs, the definition never places scan_logs relative to list_logs/log_summary/log_messages, leaving selection ambiguity.

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 'day', 'limit', and 'contains' are already fully documented in the schema; that establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior—notably it is silent on the fact that all three parameters are optional and default to the newest logs.

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 specifies the resource (logs) and, unusually, the exact shape of each output line (start time, duration, time armed, first failsafe, warning count, first warning), which tells an agent precisely what scanning yields. It does not name or contrast any sibling (list_logs, log_summary, log_messages, flight_timeline), so the boundary with those tools must be inferred from the example questions.

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?

Two concrete example questions ('which flights today lost the compass', 'which ones failsafed') imply the intended use case, which is genuinely helpful for routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must guess whether log_summary or list_logs would be better.

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