router_logs

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable context by disclosing that kernel access is restricted to a fixed command, /bin/dmesg -r, which rules out arbitrary command execution or privileged paths.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the security-relevant fixed-command constraint earns its place as the second sentence.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-schematized parameters and strong annotations, the description gives enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main omission is that no output shape is described, but for a log-tail tool this is relatively minor and no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must carry semantic weight. It does clarify that 'source' maps to system or kernel logs and that 'lines' controls a bounded tail, but it never explicitly ties 'bounded tail' to the lines parameter or explains the numeric bounds beyond what the schema's default/min/max already show.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('bounded tail of system or kernel logs'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The kernel-specific note about /bin/dmesg -r further distinguishes the kernel log path from general system logging.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of any of the many router_* siblings, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The fixed-command note is about operational safety, not tool selection.

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