ingest_processor_grok

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list but doesn't describe what the list contains (e.g., pattern names, descriptions, syntax), how it's formatted (e.g., JSON array, paginated), or any limitations (e.g., read-only access, potential rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, though it correctly implies a read operation without contradiction.

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, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.

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 complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, data structure) or any behavioral aspects like error conditions. While simple, the tool requires more context for effective use, especially in a server with many sibling tools where clarity on outputs is crucial.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for this case, as the description efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 '获取内置的 Grok 模式列表' clearly states the action (获取/retrieve) and resource (内置的 Grok 模式列表/built-in Grok pattern list). It's specific about retrieving a list of patterns rather than individual patterns or operations on them. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'ingest_processor_grok_get' or 'ingest_processor_grok_create' that might exist in other contexts, though none are present in the provided sibling list.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing Grok processors to be available, or suggest other tools for related tasks like creating custom Grok patterns or applying them in pipelines. With many sibling tools present, this lack of contextual guidance 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.