Triage

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the hard prerequisite (tenx binary on PATH or Docker with LOG10X_TENX_MODE=docker), what is NOT required (Kubernetes, deployed Reporter, Log10x account), that the pipeline runs in-process, and the shape of the returned triage including actions[] chaining. This is genuinely non-obvious operational context.

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?

Front-loads the core action and usage triggers first, then prerequisites. It is dense and slightly over-long, but nearly every sentence carries routing or prerequisite value rather than filler.

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, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still summarizes the triage structure and downstream chaining. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including source inference and top_n_patterns bounds, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal per-parameter meaning (e.g. that `environment` feeds next_actions), without new syntax or format detail.

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 specific verb+resource ('Templatize a batch of log events and return per-pattern triage') and explicitly positions itself against siblings, naming both the parallel pipeline tool (`log10x_extract_templates`) and the excluded single-line tool (`log10x_event_lookup`). An agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('can you run log10x locally', 'do a local pipeline run', 'templatize these events') plus concrete input sources (Datadog/Splunk/Elastic results, Slack attachments, kubectl logs, raw text). It also states when NOT to use it, routing single-line cases to `log10x_event_lookup`.

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