Extract templates

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no Kubernetes, deployed Reporter, or account required; execution is in-process via a tenx binary or docker container; and a REQUIRES-a-local-engine constraint with a warning that log10x_doctor does not preflight it. That missing-preflight disclosure is genuinely non-obvious and actionable.

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?

Long but front-loaded and dense with zero filler: core action first, then companion relationship, then environment requirements, then use cases, then validation mode and the engine constraint. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information.

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 an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the local-engine requirement, the no-preflight caveat, validation semantics, and the sibling relationship. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining the expected.min_templates / required_patterns / forbidden_merges block as an assertion mechanism whose results surface as PASS/FAIL in output, and by clarifying that each view yields a typed envelope. It stops short of explaining every parameter, but covers the semantically tricky one.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Extract the structural template library from a set of log lines', plus the mechanism (local Log10x pipeline) and the exact return shape (per-template records with templateHash + body, event count). It explicitly names its sibling log10x_resolve_batch and the shared question both answer, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Enumerates three concrete use cases: (a) bootstrapping a pattern catalog, (b) offline auditing of stored logs, (c) validating config changes. It also states the precondition that turns extraction into validation (pass expected.*) and names log10x_resolve_batch as the companion. When-to-use and how-to-select are both explicit.

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