lograft_correlate

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

Discloses that 'Output is redacted via the internal middleware before being returned,' which is a key behavioral trait beyond what the schema conveys. With no annotations provided, this description adds value. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects, leaving some gap.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function, the second adds behavioral context, and the third provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and a behavioral detail (redaction). It does not explain return value structure or all parameters (e.g., externalAtoms, sessionId), but it is reasonably complete for an atomic pipeline tool, especially with sibling tool context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core parameters (rowset, repoContext, joinPolicy) by describing the join operation and listing the explicit keys. However, it does not explain the externalAtoms or sessionId parameters, nor does it provide details about the rowset's inline/ref structure. The description adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 the action: 'Join a NormalizedRowset against a RepoContext using explicit keys (operation_Id, configured ticket regex, service allowlist).' It specifies the verb (join), the resources (NormalizedRowset, RepoContext), and the key criteria. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool lograft_investigate, which is the preferred tool for most users.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use: 'Most users want lograft_investigate; this atomic tool is for partial pipelines.' This tells the agent to prefer lograft_investigate unless working on partial pipelines, providing clear when-not-to-use and an alternative.

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