search_platform_logs

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses required scope ('infrastructure:logs:read') and governance details (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt). It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state side effects.

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?

Two sentences in the first paragraph plus a second paragraph on requirements. Front-loaded with purpose; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, and governance. Missing return format specification, but that is acceptable for a log search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema, only clarifying 'pattern' as a grep filter. It does not detail parameter constraints like format or examples.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'live systemd journal logs for any iTechSmart service', clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools like prooflink.search_receipts or ragflow_query.

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?

Provides specific use cases: 'find errors, trace restarts, check last N lines of any service'. While it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context signals (sibling tool get_iself_journal) imply differentiation.

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