query_journalctl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires elevated privileges, has side effects on system state, or any rate limits. The description is limited to argument descriptions.

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 concise with a front-loaded main sentence followed by parameter explanations. The structure is clear but could be improved with a more formal list format. Every part serves a purpose without unnecessary repetition.

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 covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permission requirements, error handling, return value format). Since an output schema exists, return values may be documented there. However, for a system tool, missing info on scope limitations or performance impact reduces completeness.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., '10 min ago', 'err'), and default behavior (e.g., 'empty = all', '1 hour ago'). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some parameters like 'grep_pattern' could be more detailed.

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 it's a filtered journal query and warns against dumping the whole journal. It specifies the resource (journal) and action (query), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_kernel_ring_buffer' or 'list_coredumps' that might also access system 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?

The description implies always using filters ('never dump the whole journal'), which is a clear usage guideline. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify exclusions (e.g., when to use check_kernel_ring_buffer instead).

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