logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions start/stop streaming, implying state changes, but does not explain side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'diagnostics' or 'markers' entail. The information is too sparse to understand the tool's behavior beyond a high-level hint.

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 extremely short but under-specified. It is a fragmented list rather than a clear, structured sentence. Brevity is not an asset when it omits essential information; this is more under-specification than effective conciseness.

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?

This is a complex tool with 26 parameters, multiple enums, and no output schema. The description offers almost no guidance on what actions are available, how parameters relate, or what the tool returns. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke this 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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema; it references concepts like 'markers' and 'diagnostics' but does not clarify the action parameter or other undocumented fields. It neither compensates for uncovered parameters nor adds value beyond the structured definitions.

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 lists several capabilities ('Session app log info, start/stop streaming, diagnostics, and markers') but does not use a specific verb+resource structure. It conveys that the tool deals with logs and various related actions, but lacks precision and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'trace' or 'events'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or trade-offs. Given the many sibling tools (trace, events, record, etc.), the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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