log_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return shape including a 'complete' flag that indicates truncation, the mutual exclusivity of last vs begin_ms/end_ms, and the limit guidance to narrow with text rather than raising the value. This adds substantial behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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 well-structured with READ/WHEN/INPUT/RETURNS sections, each sentence delivering necessary information. The content is front-loaded with purpose and usage, with concise parameter explanations and return format. No filler or redundancy.

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 and six parameters, the description provides complete coverage of inputs, outputs (including truncation flag), constraints (mutual exclusivity), and integration guidance. It also confirms read-only behavior, making it fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all 6 parameters: text as free-text CONTAINS search, last as a relative window with examples and default, begin_ms/end_ms as absolute epoch-ms with mutual exclusivity, limit with range and best-practice advice, and target as a config-provided name. This goes well beyond the bare 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 'Search Log Insight events within a time window' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming log_aggregate and vmware-monitor for alternative use cases, leaving no ambiguity about this tool's unique 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 'WHEN' section explicitly says to use this tool to find actual log lines behind an incident, and directs to log_aggregate for log bursts and vmware-monitor for vCenter alarms. It also suggests feeding results to vmware-debug incident_timeline, providing clear usage context and alternatives.

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