get_log_histogram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning a histogram of log volume over time, but does not specify the output format, whether the operation is read-only, or any authentication or rate-limiting requirements. The description is functional but lacks depth on expected response and side effects.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and use case without unnecessary words.

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 has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear overview. However, it could be more complete by explicitly describing the histogram output (e.g., time buckets, counts). It is not severely lacking but leaves minor ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (hours, query). The function description does not add additional semantics beyond what is in the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already sufficiently explains the parameters.

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 retrieves log volume as a histogram over time, specifying the resource (logs) and the output format (histogram). It also provides a concrete use case (spotting error spikes or unusual activity patterns), distinguishing it from siblings that deal with different metrics or resources.

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 suggests when to use the tool ('spotting error spikes or unusual activity patterns'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools (e.g., search_logs for raw logs, or get_failures_by_pattern for specific failure patterns).

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