decode_log

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions 'bounded sample' with a 'limit is capped at 500' and explains that 'Filters combine by intersection'. These details are not present in the annotations and help set expectations about the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes. It efficiently combines purpose and key constraints without wasted text.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent cannot correctly construct invocations. Required parameters like dbc_path and log_path are not mentioned, and filter semantics are only vaguely referenced. The presence of an output schema helps for return values, but the description lacks essential operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It barely does: it mentions 'limit is capped at 500' (referencing the limit parameter) and notes that filters combine by intersection, but it does not explain the key parameters (dbc_path, log_path, time_start, time_end, messages, id_filter) or how they should be formatted. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 states the tool 'Decode a bounded sample of local log frames through a local DBC', specifying the action (decode), resource (local log frames), and scope (bounded sample). This distinguishes it from siblings like decode_frame (which likely decodes a single frame) and read_frames (which may not decode).

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives or provide exclusions. It only implies usage through the filters and limit semantics, but offers no clear when-to-use instructions.

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