Syslog Search Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's bar is lower, but it adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the title. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination/limit behavior, truncation, or what happens when no logs match.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the filtering dimensions come first. It is efficient but so terse that it leaves no room for the routing guidance a multi-sibling tool needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and all 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the practical context an agent needs: which sibling to use, whether results are sorted, and whether the limit has a default cap.

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 100%, so defaults, relative time syntax, severity ordering, and regex semantics are all already documented in the schema. The description only lists which dimensions exist, adding nothing beyond the schema fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('collected logs') and enumerates the four primary narrowing dimensions. It does not differentiate from the closely related siblings syslog_grep_tool or syslog_context_tool, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over syslog_grep_tool, syslog_tail_tool, or syslog_context_tool, even though grep clearly overlaps with the pattern parameter. Usage is only inferred from the tool name and the word 'search'.

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