get_log_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Extract' implies a read/filter operation, but the description does not state side effects, how error lines are determined, what since_lines controls, or how project_path/log_name affect behavior. This is too thin for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 one tightly written sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is concise, though the brevity leaves behavioral and parameter gaps that hurt other dimensions.

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 three parameters with zero schema coverage and no annotations, so the description needs to explain more than just 'extract error lines.' The output schema covers return values, but the agent still lacks enough information about parameter semantics and operational behavior to invoke the tool confidently in varying contexts.

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 by explaining parameter behavior. It mentions a log file as a general context but does not clarify log_name, since_lines, or project_path. The parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description itself adds no meaning beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('O3DE log file'), and makes the tool's purpose clear: pulling error lines from a log. It is distinguishable from the sibling tail_log by its explicit focus on errors, though it does not name or compare against alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use get_log_errors versus alternatives like tail_log, nor about when this tool would be inappropriate. The description provides no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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