correlate_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the correlation operation and mentions a symmetric time window, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, error handling, or side effects. This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, a practical use sentence, and a clear parameter list. It is appropriately sized for 8 parameters, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal indicates true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality and parameter details, but lacks discussion of prerequisites or error cases. For a tool with no annotations, it is fairly complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It provides semantic detail for all 8 parameters, including defaults and explanations (e.g., severity filter, default window of 100ms, bag_run_id falls back to run_id). This adds substantial value beyond the input 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 verb 'correlate' with a specific resource ('log entries with bag topic messages') and a time window. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like query_logs_tool and query_bag_messages by combining both data sources.

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 explicitly states the use case: showing topic messages around log events, typically errors. It also explains cross-run correlation capability. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though the purpose makes it clear.

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