ingest_logs

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

Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency, and open-world side effects. The description adds the LMv1 authentication requirement, which is useful context not present in annotations or schema, but it does not disclose failure behavior, duplicate handling, or response characteristics.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the auth caveat appended. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter ingestion tool with full schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description plus schema is adequate for an agent to construct a valid request. It lacks usage alternatives and response details, but those are better addressed in other dimensions and are not critical omissions for invoking the tool.

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%, and the schema already documents the logs array, message, timestamp, and _lm.resourceId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Ingest log entries into LogicMonitor'. The verb 'ingest' plus the object 'log entries' clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like create_logsource (configuring a log source) or push_metrics (ingesting metrics).

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, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The only extra note is the LMv1 auth requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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