Surrounding Logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses defaults (before/after = 30s) and a hard cap (max 5m), plus the pod/container scoping constraint. It says nothing about pagination, the limit=200 cap, or range-cap behavior implied by allowLongRange, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a 38-parameter tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

For a high-complexity tool with 38 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 61% schema coverage, the description is thin. It never explains how pivot/window/around/from/to interact, how limit/offset/sample paginate, or what a surrounding-lines response looks like.

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?

Coverage is 61%, so the schema documents much of the surface already. The description adds real value only for before/after (defaults and 5m max), which the schema does not state; the other 36 parameters (pods, cluster, namespace, window, around, allowLongRange) get no added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lines around a pivot timestamp') scoped to 'the same pod/container', and the 'grep -C in time' analogy pins down the semantics precisely. It does not name any sibling tool, but the pivot-window concept is distinct from search_logs/pod_logs/logs_tail so an agent can discriminate.

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 pivot-timestamp framing implies you need an existing anchor log line, which is implicit when-to-use guidance. However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over dynatrace_search_logs, dynatrace_pod_logs, or dynatrace_logs_tail, and no prerequisites are given.

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