get_event_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the multi-source scope of the log (SEL/IML/XCC) and the normalized severity concept, but says nothing about ordering guarantees, volume, or how the optional all_logs/min_severity flags change results beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment with zero filler; the key qualifier ('newest') and the log scope appear immediately. It is slightly too terse to read as a complete sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries some burden for describing return shape, and 'normalised severity' partially covers that. However, it does not indicate the fields an entry contains (timestamp, source, message) or pagination behaviour, leaving the agent to discover the response format empirically.

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 all four parameters (limit, target, all_logs, min_severity) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and allowed severity values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (hardware event log entries) and adds concrete source examples (SEL, iLO IML, XCC platform log) plus the normalisation of severity. That is enough to distinguish it from list_targets, get_sensors, or get_health without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the sibling diagnostics tools (get_health, get_sensors, get_boot_config), nor any prerequisite such as needing a target name from list_targets. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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