find_logging_issues

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

The description explicitly states 'This is a read-only analysis operation,' indicating no destructive side effects. It also explains that it fetches recent completions and returns a list of missing fields with explanations and fixes. Without annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits, though it could mention if any data is modified (but read-only is clear).

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 well-structured with a summary, a read-only clarification, and a bulleted list of arguments. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., first two sentences both describe the core action), but overall efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the purpose, read-only nature, parameter meanings, and return type. Since an output schema is present, it is not required to detail the return format. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds full meaning to all four parameters. It explains that project_id is required, template_name filters by prompt template (or checks all if not provided), environment filters environment, and limit defaults to 50. This compensates entirely for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing recent completions for a prompt template and identifying missing logged fields. It specifies the verb (analyze, identify) and the resource (recent completions for a prompt template), and distinguishes from siblings like get_prompt_version or list_insights by focusing on logging gaps.

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 clear context for use: 'Use this to identify gaps in your observability instrumentation.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings to imply appropriate usage.

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