backend_logs_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stream and search logs' is a high-level summary that does not explain key behaviors such as whether the stream blocks, how follow works, whether Docker access is required, or whether it returns historical logs by default. This is insufficient for a tool with real-time streaming and filtering capabilities.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It conveys the core purpose and scope efficiently. Every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 filters object, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain streaming semantics, return format, or how search/filtering works. It merely states the obvious purpose without covering behavioral or output expectations, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it enumerates source types that already appear in the 'source' enum and uses 'stream' and 'search' which loosely map to 'follow' and 'filters'. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the score stays at the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Stream and search logs from backend applications (files, processes, Docker containers)'. It uses a specific verb pair ('stream and search'), identifies the resource ('logs from backend applications'), and enumerates source types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like console_search (browser console) and network_performance.

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 implies usage for backend logs from files, processes, or Docker containers, which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The phrase 'from backend applications' hints at use cases but lacks direct guidance like 'use this instead of console_search for server-side logs'.

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