Query entries from a LOG store

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits, response format). It is adequate but relies on annotations for safety transparency.

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, no redundant words. First sentence states the purpose and filters; second sentence provides usage guidance. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with essential 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?

The description covers the primary use case and provides a logical next-step (rootr_ask). While it lacks explicit return value information (no output schema), the purpose and filters are well-described. For a read-only query tool with many parameters, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so all parameters are documented. The description mentions key filters (time range, source, level, anomaly flag) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. For a high-coverage schema, the description offers minimal extra 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 the tool queries/filters log entries by specific criteria (time range, source, level, anomaly flag). It distinguishes itself from sibling rootr_ask by positioning itself as a preliminary inspection step. The verb 'query/filter' plus resource 'LOG store' makes the purpose precise.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'inspect recent activity or find anomalous entries' and recommends it before using rootr_ask for analysis. This provides clear context, though it does not mention other possible alternative tools like rootr_read or rootr_search, which could handle similar tasks.

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