mac_unified_logs_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get statistics' implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., no mutation), performance implications (e.g., slow on large files), or any required permissions. Since it's a stats tool, the risk is low, but more transparency is needed.

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 extremely concise (10 words) and front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no waste 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, the description lists expected return values (time range, subsystems, processes, count), which is helpful. It could be more complete by mentioning output format (e.g., JSON), but it sufficiently conveys what the tool provides.

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 covers 100% of parameters, with 'log_path' described as 'Path to unified_logs.csv or .logarchive bundle'. The description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema is complete.

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's purpose: 'Get statistics about a Unified Log file' and lists specific statistics (time range, top subsystems, top processes, total entry count). It distinguishes from siblings like mac_unified_logs_search and mac_unified_logs_security_events, which focus on searching or security events.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, from the context of sibling tools and the description, it is implied that this tool is for aggregated statistics rather than detailed log searching. A brief note on when to prefer this tool over others would improve clarity.

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