spraay_logs_ingest

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying cost ($0.001 USDC), persistence in Supabase, and batch size limits. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., and the description does not contradict them.

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 extremely concise with three sentences covering purpose, batch limit, persistence, and cost. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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 simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, batch constraints, persistence, and cost. Minor omissions like error handling are acceptable.

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 the schema already documents the 'entries' parameter thoroughly. The description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides.

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 ingests structured logs for debugging and monitoring, distinguishing it from the sibling spraay_logs_query. It specifies batch limits and cost, but does not explicitly differentiate from other similar tools, though it is unique among siblings.

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 debugging and monitoring but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the query tool. No when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives are provided.

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