moose_parse_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: handles truncation naturally, never blends runs, returns capped token-budget results, and focuses on structured GM events plus error/warning collection. It does not explicitly state whether parsing is read-only, but 'parse' implies non-destructive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add useful detail without redundancy. The phrase 'Pillar 4' is jargon but not excessive; overall it is tightly written.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: structured GM events, error/warning lines, and tracebacks. It also covers session handling, truncation, and token-budget limits. It does not specify the exact return format, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining token-budget capping (max_events/max_errors) and session-only behavior via 'this_session_only' through the 'never blends runs' phrase, going beyond the 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 parses dcs.log for runtime truth, extracts structured [GM] events, and collects error/warning lines. It uses a specific verb ('parse') with a specific resource (dcs.log) and distinguishes itself from siblings like moose_tail_log (tailing) and moose_parse_mission (parsing a different file).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to get runtime truth from a log, find session start, and parse errors. It highlights 'never blends runs' and token-budget behavior, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling just short of a 5.

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