norns_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it caps output at lines 1-2000, accepts both relative ("10 min ago") and absolute ("2026-10-20 18:00") time formats, and discloses that hide_repl_echo filters this server's own REPL traffic out of matron. It does not clarify whether lines means the last N or first N entries, nor whether output is truncated or paged, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a log reader.

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?

Three terse lines, front-loaded with the core identity (journalctl for a unit) followed by constraints and the one non-obvious flag. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema.

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-value documentation is not needed, and the description covers unit selection, time filtering, and line limits adequately for a read-only log tool. The only omission is tail-vs-head semantics for lines and any pagination/truncation behavior.

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 and it largely does: unit is grounded by the enumerated service names, lines by the 1-2000 range, since by two concrete accepted formats, and hide_repl_echo by what it actually removes. Every one of the four parameters gets meaning beyond its bare type and default.

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?

"journalctl for norns-<unit>.service" gives a precise verb-equivalent plus resource, and it enumerates the concrete units (matron, crone, sclang, maiden, jack, watcher) with a note that matron carries Lua/script errors. That is enough for an agent to distinguish this from siblings like norns_status or norns_current_script without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical "matron (Lua, script errors)" implies the debugging use case, and naming the units implies which one to pick, but there is no explicit "use this when X, use norns_status when Y" routing. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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