probe_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating 'without scanning all frames' and 'cheap header metadata', which are performance characteristics not conveyed by the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, target, and key differentiator in 15 words. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context. It doesn't detail what 'format' or 'header metadata' includes, but the output schema likely handles that. The performance characteristic is highlighted, making this sufficiently complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, log_path, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description mentions 'local CAN log', which hints at the parameter's purpose, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter format or requirements. The name is self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 uses a specific verb 'Detect' and specifies the resource 'local CAN log' and the exact output: 'format and cheap header metadata'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_frames by emphasizing 'without scanning all frames', making its unique purpose clear.

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 implies a use case: when you need quick, cheap metadata about a log without full scanning. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over frame-reading tools.

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