log_collect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions time range and predicate filtering, giving some behavioral context, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it requires simulator to be booted, or what happens if no logs match the predicate. The verb 'collect' suggests a reading operation, but clarity on side effects is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential information without any wasted words. Every phrase earns its place: the verb 'collect', the resource 'logs from a simulator', and the key filtering capabilities 'time range and predicate filtering'.

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 has 4 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It communicates the core functionality and filtering capabilities. However, it could mention the output style parameter (enum) and whether results are returned in a specific format or streaming, but the schema compensates for the style part.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing that filtering is by time range and predicate, which groups the loosely described parameters into a cohesive intent. It does not add syntax details beyond the schema, but the grouping helps the agent understand the tool's purpose.

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 collects logs from a simulator and mentions time range and predicate filtering. It specifies the resource ('logs from a simulator') and the action ('collect'), distinguishing it from log_stream, which is a sibling tool for live streaming.

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 usage for collecting recent logs with filtering options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like log_stream or diagnostics. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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