agloop_search_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions case-insensitivity and searchable fields but omits details about pagination, result limits, performance, or effect on the system. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary information. Every word adds value.

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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately states the purpose but lacks details on query syntax and expected output shape. Some additional context, such as example queries or result structure, would improve completeness.

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 input schema has one parameter 'query' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that the search is full-text and case-insensitive but does not clarify the expected query syntax (e.g., plain text, Lucene, regex). For a single-parameter tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Clearly states it performs full-text search through execution logs, listing specific fields (agent, action, task_id, phase, input/output summaries) and noting case-insensitivity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_logs (likely retrieval by ID) and append_log (addition).

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 like get_logs or list_tasks. The description implies the purpose (searching logs) but does not state limitations or provide criteria for selection.

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