Wait For Log Pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the polling loop and the timeout bounds (default 30s, max 120s), but omits what happens on timeout (error vs empty result), whether it blocks, and any auth/connection prerequisites for a 23-parameter tool.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core poll-until semantics followed by the test-oriented scope. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

A 23-parameter polling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 13% schema coverage needs a much fuller description. The current text leaves return behavior, timeout outcome, and most filtering parameters undocumented.

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 only 13% across 23 parameters, so the description is the main compensating channel, yet it only clarifies that contains/regex are the wait triggers and mentions timeout. The other ~20 params (pods, containsAll/Any, notContains, excludeLevels, excludePatterns, sample, limit, offset, cluster, namespace, etc.) get no explanation beyond their bare names.

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 (poll/wait) and resource (log pattern on given pods), and the title/purpose clearly differentiate it from search/list siblings like dynatrace_search_logs or dynatrace_logs_tail. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'For integration tests' gives an implied when-to-use context that distinguishes this polling tool from the static log-search siblings, but it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for one-shot reads. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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