send_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data can be sent but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'send'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after sending. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 and well-structured: a clear opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet-like list of record fields. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 4 parameters, the description is partially complete. It covers record structure well but misses top-level parameter explanations and behavioral context. For a tool that likely performs writes, more disclosure would be helpful.

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 adds substantial value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It documents the structure of individual log records (body, severity, severity_text, attributes, timestamp_ns), which isn't captured in the schema's generic 'additionalProperties' for records. However, it doesn't explain the four top-level parameters (service_name, records, resource_attributes, endpoints) mentioned in the schema.

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 action ('send') and resource ('log records'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'send_metric' or 'send_trace' beyond specifying it's for logs rather than metrics or traces.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_metric' or 'send_trace', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply describes what the tool does without usage context.

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