search_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered by structured data. The description adds that it operates over a log file and matches lines, but says nothing about query syntax, case sensitivity, regex support, or pagination – useful context is thin but the annotation bar is lower.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb and object. Short in the sense of under-specification rather than elegant conciseness, but structurally fine.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape, but it doesn't. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and no sibling differentiation among a crowded toolset, the definition is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. Query and log_path are not defined (syntax, format, relative vs absolute path), and max_results is left entirely to the schema default. With zero coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not at all.

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?

States a verb and resource (searches a log file for matching lines), which is clear enough. However, it gives no sibling differentiation despite many near-neighbors like search_code, git_diff, and recent_changes – an agent cannot tell from the description how this differs from those log/code search 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is present. The description offers no context for selecting this over search_code or recent_changes.

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