logtest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool calls the Content Manager plugin on the indexer, explains the effect of trace_level values, and warns that without integration the detection phase is 'skipped.' It also notes that a valid space name does not guarantee the environment is provisioned, adding important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It opens with the core purpose, then organises parameter details under a clear 'Args:' list. The prose about space and trace_level is dense but necessary. No filler or repetition exists.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description provides all needed context: what the tool does, what the output looks like, how parameters affect behavior, and where to go for related information. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. This is a complete, self-sufficient tool definition.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: event, location, queue, space, trace_level, and integration. It includes allowed values, defaults, and behavior for each, such as 'trace_level: One of NONE, ASSET_ONLY, ALL' and 'Defaults to ASSET_ONLY.' This goes far beyond the bare 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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Run a raw log line through the Wazuh 5 decoder chain and return the result.' It further explains the purpose by stating that the response shows which decoders matched and the normalised WCS document, positioning it as a diagnostic tool for field issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or findings_overview.

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 states both the context ('the way to find out why a field is empty in the index') and explicitly points to a sibling tool for complementary functionality: 'use the tester_sessions tool to see which ones exist and are enabled.' It also gives practical guidance about the integration parameter's effect on detection. This is strong when-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative.

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