scan_system_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states logs are summarized locally and to prevent token bloat, but does not specify the output format, if it is read-only, or if any state is modified. The summarization mechanism (e.g., aggregation, suppression of details) is unclear.

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 two sentences: one for action and one for purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no extraneous information. Slightly more detail on output could improve it.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe what the agent receives (summary format) or any side effects. More context is needed for the agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema; for example, it mentions 'systemd service names' which aligns with the 'service' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch and parse'), resource ('system/service logs'), and purpose ('summarizes errors and warning patterns to prevent token usage bloat'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_service_states' or 'analyze_root_cause' by focusing on log summarization.

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 description implies use for log summarization to avoid token bloat, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use instead of siblings, prerequisites, or exclusions. No 'when-not' or alternative tools are mentioned.

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