sentinel_logs_search

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 fails to describe key traits: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., raw logs, structured data). The description only states the action without behavioral context.

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 zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized for a basic description, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 query tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details: parameter guidance, behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, with one undocumented parameter 'kwargs' of type string. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'kwargs' should contain (e.g., KQL query syntax, time range, workspace ID), format, or examples. This leaves the parameter semantics entirely unclear.

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 states the action ('Run a KQL query') and target ('against Azure Monitor'), which gives a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Azure Monitor' specifically refers to in this context (e.g., logs, metrics, specific tables) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sentinel_logs_search_with_dummy_data' or 'log_analytics_saved_searches_list', which limits its clarity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, workspace context), typical use cases (e.g., security investigations, monitoring), or exclusions (e.g., when to use 'sentinel_logs_search_with_dummy_data' for testing). This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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