get_logrotate_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, specifies the source paths (/etc/logrotate.conf and /etc/logrotate.d), and mentions error handling ('Errors land in the errors field'). This is substantial, though it could add what happens if files are missing.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and sources; the second covers error behavior and usage. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded.

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 read-only, no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: purpose, sources, read-only nature, error handling, and use case. The output schema likely covers return values, so no need to explain them.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter information is needed, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: returns logrotate configuration files and the state file path. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource, and differentiates itself from sibling system-info tools by focusing on logrotate-specific details.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use to verify rotation policies.' It also clarifies the read-only source paths, giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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