query_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: 'bounded' (requiring a result-limiting operator), 'against one workspace' (scope constraint), and the data types covered. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't discuss return format or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the primary use case and followed by an exclusion with an alternative. Every word earns its place, no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and a clear description covering purpose, scope, and exclusions, the tool is well-specified for an agent. No output schema exists, but for a query tool the description sufficiently sets expectations without needing to explain return values.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description reinforces the query parameter as 'bounded, read-only KQL' and the workspaceId as 'one workspace', but does not add substantially new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 runs bounded, read-only KQL queries against a single Log Analytics workspace, specifically for telemetry, logs, events, metrics, and time-series data. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_azure_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?

Explicitly states when to use (telemetry, logs, etc.) and when not to use (Azure resource inventory/config), with a direct pointer to the alternative tool query_azure_resources. This provides clear decision-making guidance.

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