get_log_charts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that the result is an aggregated histogram rather than raw logs; it says nothing about bucket granularity, whether results are truncated, pagination, or auth requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the useful clarification in parentheses. No filler text.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about the returned histogram and its constraints. It at least characterizes the return as a time-series count distribution, which is the minimum needed to call it correctly, but leaves the response shape and limits unspecified.

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%, so table_id, st, et, and query are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'over time' hints that st/et drive the histogram but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('log histogram data') and clarifies the output with a parenthetical: 'log count distribution over time'. This is clearly distinct from a generic search, though it never names the sibling search_logs or otherwise differentiates itself from it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_logs, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that table_id should come from resolve_table_id). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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