loki_log_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (ranking by bytes), the time window, the row limit, and the container scoping behavior. It doesn't mention anything contradictory, though it omits details like read-only nature or aggregation semantics, which are likely implied for a ranker.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a compact parameter dictionary. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use parameters, and the use case. Nothing essential is missing.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: container scope, minutes as the measurement window, and limit as max rows, including defaults. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rank containers by log volume (bytes)' and provides a concrete use case ('which service suddenly got noisy'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query/range or tail by focusing on volume ranking.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and how to adjust scope: 'Leave container empty to rank the whole fleet; set it to scope to one container.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the use case is clear.

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