log_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it declares 'Read-only', explains that all filters are optional and AND-ed, describes output formats (`oneline`, `json`, `full`), and defines `limit` as keeping the most recent N. It also discloses the absence of the `--follow` tail behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a dense but efficient listing of filters and formats. No filler, every clause adds value, and the structure makes the long parameter list scannable.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's read-only nature, all filter categories, output format options, limit behavior, and its relationship to the CLI. No significant gap remains for effective selection and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful group-level semantics beyond individual schema entries: 'All filters are optional and AND-ed', shorthand for `since`/`until`, `status` pattern syntax, and calling `fuzzy`/`query` a 'mini-language'. This enriches understanding but is not exhaustive for all 13 parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the local omni-dev request log — every CLI/MCP invocation and the HTTP requests it issued — and return matching records as text.' This clearly defines scope and output, and distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it mirrors the `omni-dev log` CLI.

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 gives clear context: it is the MCP counterpart to `omni-dev log`, and notes the `--follow` tail has no MCP form, implying this tool cannot tail. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, no sibling log-search tool exists, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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