Search local logs

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering safety and locality, the description goes further: it discloses that very long lines are skipped and that a 'truncated' signal marks safety/result-limit stops. That is real behavioral context an agent could not get from the annotations, though rate/permission behavior is untouched.

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, no filler, and the most important constraint (search root) comes before the edge-case behavior (skipped lines, truncation). Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary; the description still explains the notable 'truncated' signal. Combined with the schema's per-parameter detail, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit when-to-use guidance 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 paths, pattern, maxResults and caseSensitive are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the concept of a regex pattern, which the schema already states, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search local log files for a regular-expression pattern'. The scope qualifier (TOOLBOX_LOG_DIRS / cwd) narrows the resource precisely. Siblings (docker, JSON, git) are unrelated, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description never says it out loud.

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?

Conveys the searchable domain and the fallback to cwd, which implicitly tells an agent when the tool applies. It does not state when not to use it or name any alternative for, say, non-log content, so guidance stays 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.