loki_recent

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic fetch operation, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a read tool, stating it is non-destructive would have been helpful.

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 fluff. First sentence states purpose and key filters, second provides usage guidance. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

For a simple log fetch tool with good schema descriptions, the description covers key usage aspects. Lacks return format details, but overall adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising that at least one of host or service should normally be supplied, but does not enhance understanding of since or limit beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Fetch recent logs') and the resource ('logs'), with optional filtering by host and service. Differentiates from sibling tools like loki_query by noting it avoids raw LogQL.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for common troubleshooting when raw LogQL is not needed. Advises supplying at least one of host or service to avoid broad queries. No explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparison, but context is clear.

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