Search archived 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. It usefully discloses the enabling prerequisite, but says nothing about read-only nature, authorization failures when Monitoring is disabled, throttling, or the archive-file download/parse cost implied by maxFiles/maxEntities. Prerequisite disclosure is real added value, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 with no filler; the API/purpose leads, the prerequisite follows, and the use case closes. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope boundary, prerequisite, and intended use case adequately. It could do slightly more on fallback behavior (full-scan replica probing) and return shape, but the essential calling context is present.

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 every parameter (date range, limit, maxFiles, maxEntities, errorOnly, environment resolution) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (historical Mule application logs) and names the underlying API. It also distinguishes itself from sibling log tools by scope ('dates beyond the live tail's rolling buffer'), so an agent can separate it from anypoint_list_app_logs without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('for dates beyond the live tail's rolling buffer', 'past-date incident investigation') and states a prerequisite (Anypoint Monitoring enabled). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling to use for live/near-real-time logs, leaving that routing to inference, which keeps it short of a 5.

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