Performance Query Log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: an enabling prerequisite (devel logging) and that min_duration is rejected rather than silently ignored, which prevents a false-confidence filter. It does not say what happens when devel logging is absent (error vs empty list), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, then the caveat that would otherwise cause a wrong invocation. The second sentence is dense but every clause earns its place; minor formatting artifacts are the only blemish.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the prerequisite plus refusal semantics are covered. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving 'limit' undefined and giving no sibling routing leaves a real gap.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It explains min_duration thoroughly (refused, because watchdog rows carry no duration), but 'limit' gets no mention at all — no default, cap, or ordering semantics — so compensation is only partial.

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: 'Get the recent db_query watchdog entries', with the source pinned down to watchdog rows populated by devel logging. This is far more specific than the name alone, but it never names the closely related siblings (db_query, drush_watchdog) that an agent could confuse it with.

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 prerequisite ('requires devel logging') and the fact that duration data lives elsewhere imply when this tool is applicable, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of db_query / drush_watchdog' routing. The agent must infer that this reads logged queries rather than executing or tailing them.

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