search_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states that the tool returns matching log lines with container name and timestamp, but does not disclose potential performance impacts, limits, or behavior when no matches are found. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 sentence with 17 words, front-loading the action ('Search Docker container logs'). Every word is necessary, and there is no superfluous information. It is highly 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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return format structure, pagination, or error behavior. It does not explain the format of timestamps or how multiple matches are presented. For a search tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates the regex matching aspect. Each parameter's description in the schema is already clear, so the tool description provides no additional value.

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 it searches Docker container logs using regex pattern matching across multiple containers, and specifies the return format includes container name and timestamp. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stream_logs (real-time streaming) and compose_logs (specific to docker-compose).

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like stream_logs or compose_logs. It implies usage for regex-based search across containers but lacks guidance on exclusions or context where other tools would be more appropriate.

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