sap_read_syslog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a non-destructive read operation through 'Query' and 'Shows', and specifies the type of entries returned. However, it does not mention authentication needs, date-range behavior, pagination, max_rows enforcement, or whether the log is system-wide, though the lack of mutation makes this less critical.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds relevant output content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description plus a fully documented optional-parameter schema is enough to make a basic call, but there is no output schema and no guidance on return format, limits, or when to prefer this over similar read tools. In a large sibling set, the lack of routing and return-shape context leaves the description only minimally complete.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description, example, and defaults where applicable. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but does not need to because the schema already provides sufficient semantic context.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Query', the resource 'system log entries', and the source transaction 'SM21'. It also indicates the result content ('system events, warnings, and errors'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like sap_read_dumps or sap_read_jobs.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling read/query tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use read_dumps for short dumps'. Usage context is only implied by the resource being queried.

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