bricks_call_log

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

No annotations provided, but description reveals behavioral detail: results include before/after element diff for mutating calls, and filters are listed. It adequately conveys what the tool returns and its filtering capabilities. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core query behavior and return data, followed by use case and filter summary. Extremely efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description covers key return fields (args, status, duration, diff). For a log query tool, this provides sufficient context. Could mention structure format, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, and description repeats parameter names but adds minimal context (e.g., 'newest first, default 30' for limit). While it aids understanding, it adds little beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Query the structured MCP call log' and specifies the content (args, status, duration, diff). It differentiates from sibling tools, which focus on actions like creating, updating, or getting snapshots, not querying logs.

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?

Explicitly describes use case: 'Use this to trace which call changed or corrupted a page and what input triggered it, instead of guessing from a snapshot.' This implies when to use this tool over alternatives like get_page. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but provides clear guidance.

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