filter_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states filtering by level and file type support but does not cover behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, output format (despite having an output schema), or performance considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand full 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core action and supported log formats. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Filter' and resource 'log file,' followed by specific detail on levels and formats. No wasted words.

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 lack of annotations, zero schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description fails to provide complete context. It omits details about output format, input path specifics, and edge cases. The agent lacks information needed for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for parameters. The description mentions 'path' implicitly and lists level values but does not define path constraints (e.g., local vs. container path) or level formatting (e.g., case sensitivity). This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool filters log files by specified log levels (ERROR, WARN, INFO, DEBUG). It also mentions support for JSON and plain text log formats. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_logs or docker_grep, leaving some ambiguity in purpose.

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 implies use when filtering logs by level, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., docker_logs, docker_grep). It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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