SOC: High Severity Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that logs are 'recent' and include service and message text, which provides some behavioral context but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.

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 stating the purpose, followed by three example queries. Every part is relevant and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does and when to use it. It implies the return format (logs with service and message text) and the scope (recent, high severity). No additional information is needed for effective use.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter 'since' fully described in the schema with a clear example. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score for high coverage is 3.

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 provides CRITICAL/FATAL/ERROR logs with service and message text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like soc_log_spike and soc_repeated_errors by focusing on severity rather than spikes or repetitions. Example queries ('show critical events', 'recent incident logs') further clarify the 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 provides explicit query examples ('show critical events', 'recent incident logs', 'what looks severe right now') that indicate common use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or offer alternatives, but the context is clear and the examples cover the typical usage.

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