rf-log-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the search returns. The mention of 'indexed messages' hints at a read operation but is insufficient for a mutation-aware agent.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and specifies input types clearly, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the 'run_id' parameter but misses others, and with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context. However, the output schema mitigates some gaps, making it minimally adequate but with clear deficiencies.

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 but only partially does. It explains 'run_id' accepts numeric or file path inputs, but doesn't clarify 'query', 'level', 'limit', or 'cursor' parameters. This leaves most parameters undocumented beyond schema types.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('indexed messages'), and specifies the two input types ('numeric run id or an already-parsed file path'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_view' or 'parse_result', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_view' or 'parse_result'. The description mentions input types but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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