pve_cluster_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Read cluster log' doesn't indicate whether this is a real-time stream or historical data, whether it requires special permissions, what format the log entries come in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens when the 'max' parameter is omitted. For a logging tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While it's arguably too brief for adequate functionality explanation, from a pure conciseness perspective, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if more words would be beneficial for clarity.

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?

Given that this is a logging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. The agent needs to understand what kind of data this returns, in what format, for what time period, with what permissions required, and how it differs from other logging tools. The current description provides none of this necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'max' clearly documented as 'Maximum entries to return'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'Read cluster log' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_cluster_log'. It specifies the verb 'Read' and resource 'cluster log', but doesn't provide any meaningful elaboration about what a cluster log contains, its purpose, or how it differs from other logging tools like 'pve_get_node_journal' or 'pve_get_node_syslog' in the sibling list. The description lacks specificity about what kind of information the cluster log provides.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related logging tools in the sibling list (pve_get_node_journal, pve_get_node_syslog, pve_get_node_task_log, pve_get_container_status, pve_get_vm_status), but the description offers no context about when this specific cluster log tool is appropriate versus those other options. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or use cases.

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