logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool wraps journalctl and can read a concrete file, and states its return is the requested log lines, which is useful but does not go deeper into pagination, errors, or remote-host behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by orderly Args and Returns sections. There is no filler or repetition, and the essential information appears first.

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 logging tool, the description plus the detailed schema and safety annotations covers the main call path: source selection (unit vs path), filters, output format, and return type. It does not address sibling-tool selection or failure modes, but those are secondary for this simple, read-only tool.

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 description only enumerates parameter names (`unit`, `path`, `lines`, `since`, `grep`, `host`, `response_format`) without explaining them. The input schema itself provides rich per-property descriptions, so the schema carries the semantics burden; the description adds little beyond the field list.

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 opens with 'Rendszernaplok olvasasa' (reading system logs) and names concrete mechanisms: journalctl by unit or a specific log file. This clearly identifies the operation and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like `system_info` or `service_status`, though it does not explicitly contrast any sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement and the 'unit OR path' hint, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as `service_status` or `process_list`, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is enough context to infer the use case, but no explicit routing guidance.

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