Diagnose Issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions 'combining search + small summary' and filtering with exclude_messages, but does not clarify whether the tool only reads logs, aggregates across services, or has any side effects or rate limits. The behavior remains partly opaque.

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, consisting of two short sentences, and clearly mentions an example for exclude_messages. It is well-structured enough to be quickly read, though the brevity contributes to vagueness in other dimensions.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain what should be passed for the time filters, how the summary is generated, or what the output format looks like (despite an output schema existing). The tool's role in a diagnosis workflow is not fully contextualized.

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 schema has zero description coverage for parameters, and the description only explains the exclude_messages parameter. The other seven parameters (start, end, last, level, limit, service, correlation_id) are not described at all, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage. This is a significant gap.

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 it is a 'Convenience diagnosis tool combining search + small summary', which gives a general sense of purpose but lacks specificity about what is searched, what the summary contains, or how it differs from other log-related tools. The verb 'diagnose' is implied but not explicitly stated as an action on an issue, making it somewhat vague.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like get_logs_for_service or get_logs_by_correlation_id. The word 'convenience' hints at being a wrapper, but it does not state conditions for use or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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