Correlate Multi-System Errors

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the openWorldHint annotation suggests. It does not state whether the tool performs side effects, requires specific log formats, or returns a structured report. With a single minimal annotation, the description carries the burden for behavioral transparency, but it only says 'Analyze' and does not clarify read-only nature, output, or limitations.

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 with 12 words. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes meaning. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description adequately conveys the essential purpose. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a correlation report, a list of root causes) or mention any edge cases or prerequisites. This is adequate for basic selection but leaves some context 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?

The schema has one parameter 'logs' with array-of-objects structure, but no property descriptions (schema coverage 0%). The description merely says 'log snippets from multiple systems', which does not explain that each object must have 'system_name' and 'content' fields or how they should be formatted. The description does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze'), a clear resource ('log snippets from multiple systems'), and an explicit purpose ('find root causes and correlations'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which perform multi-system error analysis. This clearly states what the tool does.

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 clearly implies the tool is for analyzing logs from multiple systems to diagnose issues. It provides clear context, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Since no sibling tool offers similar functionality, exclusions are less critical, but still lacking.

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