summarize_access_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool returns only aggregated data, lists the computed analytical dimensions, and sets a clear constraint with 'Never raw lines.' It could add edge-case behavior, but it is transparent about the main behavioral contract.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the operation, output facets, and a key exclusion into a compact form. There is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what the summary will include and what it will never return. It could be more explicit about the response structure or when to prefer this over summarize_log_errors, but it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does not need to since since, service, and namespace are already well documented in the input 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 names the resource (proxy access log) and the operation (aggregated summary), and enumerates concrete outputs such as status classes, p50/p95 top paths, per-upstream latency, and 504/499 counts. 'Never raw lines' explicitly distinguishes it from raw log tools like get_logs.

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 use when an aggregated, analytical view of proxy access logs is neededestrategy. 'Never raw lines' hints that raw-line retrieval is out of scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or give a when-not-to-use condition, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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