Node Logs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with it by saying 'Read'. The description adds useful context about the two log sources, but does not disclose output format, potential access restrictions, or truncation behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose: 'Read node logs.' The action mapping is compact and adds no redundant fluff. Every part of the description is useful.

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?

For a two-required-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema covers both parameters sufficiently: node is named and action values are explained. There is no output schema and the description does not mention return format, which is a minor gap, but it does not prevent an agent from making a correct call.

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 schema already documents 'node' as a node name, but 'action' only has an enum with no description. The description compensates by explicitly explaining 'action=syslog' and 'action=journal', so the previously undocumented parameter becomes clear.

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 verb and resource: 'Read node logs', and further distinguishes two concrete modes (syslog and systemd journal). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can identify what the tool does.

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 when to use the tool by saying 'Read node logs' and maps each action value to its meaning. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like proxmox_node_info or proxmox_node_task, nor exclusions for cases where a different tool would be better.

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