index_log_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the time-window filtering behavior and the return summary (files processed, chunks created, time range). However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing indexes or blocking behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with sections for usage, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter list is formatted clearly. It is thorough without being 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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, all parameters, and return values, which is sufficient for a tool with a simple operation and an output schema. It lacks details on permissions or side effects, but given the available structured data, it is nearly complete.

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?

The description provides full semantics for all four parameters, which is critical since schema descriptions are absent. It includes helpful examples for file patterns and time formats. However, it incorrectly marks 'project' as 'required' while the schema does not require it, which could mislead an agent into thinking it must be provided.

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 indexes a specific log file or a time window within it, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from background reindexing, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool 'instead of waiting for background reindex on large log files', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It effectively communicates the alternative to this explicit indexing approach.

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