search_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic search action without mentioning whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or the nature of results (e.g., does it return matching lines or log metadata?). The description does not go beyond a verb phrase, leaving the agent to guess at side effects or constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the essential action efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise.

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 schema fully covers parameters and there is no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose. However, for a search tool, it lacks context on what constitutes a search (e.g., full-text, regex, field-specific) and how it interacts with sessions. The sibling tools suggest more specific use cases, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's position in the toolset. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 all four parameters (query, limit, offset, sessionId) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 a clear verb ('search') and resource ('logs') with a mention of a query string. It distinguishes from siblings like get_new_logs (which implies retrieval without search semantics) and get_logs_paginated (which is likely a non-search paginated fetch), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The core purpose is evident.

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 its siblings (get_new_logs, get_logs_paginated, etc.). The description simply says 'search through logs' without elaborating on scenarios, such as needing full-text search versus simple retrieval, or when to prefer this over pagination-based tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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