search_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are ANSI-stripped and that matches are returned in most-recent order. However, it omits other behavioral details like whether it blocks, whether it searches the entire file each time, or any rate/performance caveats. For a read tool the core behavior is reasonably conveyed, but not exhaustively.

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 short sentences front-load the primary action and result format before adding use-case context. No filler words, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search operation with 4 documented params at 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description explains the return limit and pre-processing (ANSI stripping), which covers the main expectations. It does not fully spell out return format or match content, but that is not necessary given the schema and the nature of the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description references 'limit' explicitly and adds the ANSI-stripped detail, but it does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already documents for parameters like regex or caseSensitive. It provides an adequate but not enriched view.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Homebridge log'), and defines the result scope (matching lines, limited, ANSI-stripped). It is clearly distinct from sibling get_recent_logs because searching implies pattern matching rather than simple retrieval.

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?

The phrase 'Useful for finding errors, warnings, or events involving a specific device' gives practical scenarios, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_recent_logs or define when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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