log_webfilter

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only behavior, side effects, authentication needs, pagination, or performance impact. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It could be more informative while still being concise, but as is, it is not verbose.

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 has an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is still too minimal. It lacks context about the nature of the logs (real-time vs. historical), data freshness, or any limitations. Among many sibling log tools, more context is needed for the agent to choose correctly.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as parameter relationships or usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query web filter (URL category/block) logs.' clearly states the tool's purpose: it queries logs related to web filtering, specifically URL categories and blocks. It effectively distinguishes from sibling log tools for other types (e.g., log_dns, log_virus) and from webfilter configuration tools (e.g., webfilter_profile_list).

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 provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., other log tools). There are no prerequisites, limitations, or context about the data source or applicable scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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