create_log_parsing_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without detailing permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate and leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity. Every word serves the purpose, earning a high score for conciseness despite content gaps.

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 complexity of a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter semantics. Although an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough context for effective tool use, making it inadequate overall.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It does not explain what 'grok', 'nrql', or other fields mean, their formats, or how they interact, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.

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 'Create a new log parsing rule' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('log parsing rule'), but does not distinguish from siblings like 'generate_log_parsing_rule' or 'update_log_parsing_rule', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. This is a tautological restatement rather than a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 versus alternatives. Siblings include 'generate_log_parsing_rule' and 'update_log_parsing_rule', but the description does not mention these or explain prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. This lack of guidance could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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