search_job_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the search is 'strictly inside background job logs' but does not explain case-insensitivity (though schema says it), return format, pagination, error behavior, or whether it searches multiple files. This minimal transparency forces the agent to rely on assumptions.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and 4 parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., matching lines, metadata), how 'text pattern' is interpreted (exact, regex?), or how the strict scoping interacts with background job logs. Among many sibling tools, this lack of completeness hampers effective selection and invocation.

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% with each parameter having a description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps, but the schema is self-sufficient.

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 clearly states it searches for a text pattern inside background job logs, with the word 'strictly' emphasizing scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_logs (broader) and search_job_logs_by_name (by name) by focusing on pattern search, but could be more explicit about the context of background job logs.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_logs, get_job_log_entries, or search_job_logs_by_name. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone, leading to potential confusion among many log-related sibling tools.

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