system_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. The description only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent without crucial behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not optimally informative. It front-loads the core purpose but omits details that could be provided without much length (e.g., default line count, example services). It is adequate but not exemplary.

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 is simple (2 params, no output schema), the description should cover basic expectations. It fails to mention output format, pagination, or maximum lines. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively without supplementing from the schema alone.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain default values for 'lines' or enumerate valid service names. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the description is not penalized further but adds no value.

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 action (view) and the resource (system logs for a specific service). The verb 'view' and the resource 'system logs' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like docker_logs, which also view logs but for a narrower scope. Without this distinction, an agent might not know when to choose system_logs over docker_logs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., docker_logs for Docker-specific logs). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided. The description implies it's for any system service but doesn't specify use cases or prerequisites.

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