fetch_graylog_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the prerequisite but fails to mention read-only nature, error handling when no connection is active, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that fetches data.

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 extremely concise—two sentences totaling 21 words—with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and includes a useful prerequisite. Every word contributes to clarity, making it an exemplary model of brevity.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description offers no guidance on parameter usage, result format, or how it interacts with siblings like list_streams or get_surrounding_messages. The prerequisite mention helps slightly, but overall it leaves substantial gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 provides complete descriptions for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level detail or context beyond what the schema already supplies, so the score remains at baseline.

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 identifies the tool's function as fetching messages from the active Graylog connection, specifying the verb (Fetch), resource (messages), and scope (active Graylog connection). It also references the prerequisite of using 'use_connection', which helps distinguish it from other list/get tools in the sibling set, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar message retrieval tools.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Use use_connection first to select a connection.' This provides context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with get_surrounding_messages or search_events, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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