Log signal explanations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so admirably. It explicitly states the tool is deterministic, read-only, advisory, has no shell/SSH/child processes/network/LLM/mutation/recovery authority, never touches the Docker socket, and reports unclassifiable signals as UNKNOWN while never returning evidence messages. This goes far beyond what annotations typically provide and leaves no hidden behavior.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, source, exclusions, taxonomy, advisory nature, and input constraint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers constraints and exclusions logically. There is no filler or repetition, making the length justified.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, operational source, possible classification labels (EXPLAINED | UNKNOWN | UNAVAILABLE), deterministic taxonomy categories, all behavioral constraints, and the exact input shape. Since an output schema exists, it need not detail return structures. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly without guessing.

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 is an empty object with zero properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds crucial semantic clarity by stating 'Input must be exactly {}' and explicitly enumerating what the agent can never select (path, file, container, service, journal, query, time range). This prevents an agent from hallucinating parameters that the schema alone might not fully convey for such a constrained no-input tool.

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 opens with a clear question defining the tool's purpose: 'What do the currently configured operational log signals mean?' It further specifies deterministic read-only advisory explanations and explicitly distinguishes itself from a log browser by stating what it never does (never reads raw logs, never tails files, never runs grep/journalctl/docker logs). This makes it distinct from all sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about its scope.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: explanations are computed only from a fixed operator-controlled JSON file of normalized log signals, not from raw logs. It clearly states exclusions ('NOT a log browser'), which tells the agent when not to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. Still, the boundary is clear enough for practical selection.

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