Search Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it is case-insensitive (grep -i) and result-capped at the last 200 matching lines, which tells the agent output may be truncated. It stops short of explaining ordering or what happens when the cap is hit.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, then the optional filter, then the return behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 output schema, the description usefully states the return shape ('last 200 matching lines'), which is the key fact an agent needs for a search tool. It is nearly complete, missing only finer detail on result ordering and truncation behavior.

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 both 'unit' and 'pattern' are already documented in the schema. The description's 'grep -i' phrasing reinforces the case-insensitive semantics but adds no syntax, edge-case, or formatting detail beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search journal logs for a pattern') and adds the grep -i comparison, so an agent knows it is a filtered text search rather than a full dump. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby get_journal_logs or tail_file siblings, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 'optional unit filter' hints at the scoping use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_journal_logs (bulk retrieval) or tail_file. Usage is implied rather than guided, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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