obs_log_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains query language (LogQL), time range formats, and platform-specific details. However, it does not disclose what happens on error (e.g., invalid query), pagination limits, or authentication requirements. Enough for a 3, but not higher.

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 very compact with only a few sentences, each adding unique value. It is well-structured with bullet-like insights (region split, LogQL example, time_range formats). No wasted words.

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 has 8 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, so completeness is judged against this complexity. The description covers the key custom parameters well (region, query, time_range) but omits mention of 'env', 'limit', 'direction', and temporal bounds. Still sufficient for most use cases given the LogQL focus.

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 adds meaning to 'query' (LogQL examples), 'time_range' (accepted formats), and 'region' (platform mapping). However, it does not cover all 8 parameters (e.g., 'env', 'limit', 'direction', 'from_time', 'to_time'). Still, the most critical ones are well-explained.

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 tool queries logs (Loki), and distinguishes between two platforms (region=aws vs region=cn) with specific addresses. It also provides practical details about query syntax (LogQL) and time range formats, making the purpose very specific and actionable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each region (aws vs cn) and mentions a sibling context indirectly by noting that domestic non-prod has switched to Loki style. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool against sibling tools like obs_sls_query or provide exclusion criteria.

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