Analyze Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds 'via SSH', which hints at remote authentication, but it doesn't explain what the analysis actually does, how much data is read, or any SSH credential expectations beyond what the schema already says.

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 no wasted words. But it is under-specified rather than effectively concise: two sentence fragments carry almost no actionable detail about analysis behavior.

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?

This is a remote log-analysis tool with six parameters, including patterns, log_paths, and SSH auth options, and an output schema. The description leaves the core behavior unexplained: what kind of analysis is performed, how patterns and log_paths interact, and what the output represents. Even with a rich schema and output schema, an agent needs more context to invoke this confidently versus alternatives.

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 six parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 a verb (Analyze) and resource (logs) plus a transport (SSH), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, 'analyze' is vague and 'Remote system intelligence' is generic, so it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like tm_file_content_search or tm_remote_run_command, which could also read remote logs.

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 versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. Nothing tells the agent whether this is for pattern matching in log files, aggregate analysis, or something else, so selection among the many remote/file/system siblings is left to inference.

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