get_syslog_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it well by disclosing the non-obvious trait: it returns raw rows only and intentionally defers 'suggested fixes' analysis to the caller. That is a critical expectation-setting disclosure. It does not cover response format, volume limits, or empty-result behavior, but the disclosed role split is the most important trait for correct invocation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the purpose and defaults are front-loaded, and the role-split note carries real information rather than padding. Lacks any section structure, but for a short description none is needed. Efficient and every sentence 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?

For a simple read tool with 0 required params and fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, filtering, and division of labor. The main omission is the return shape (no output schema exists to cover it), but an agent can call this correctly from what is provided — which is the essential bar.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little to the date parameter beyond duplicating the yesterday default already in the schema, but it does enrich the levels parameter with a genuine operational tip (verify level choice values against the instance if empty). This modest value-add keeps it at baseline rather than below.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch sys_log rows'), then narrows scope with filtering ('warnings/errors by default') and a temporal default (yesterday). The resource is distinct from every sibling (developer work report, optimization recommendations, catalog items), so an agent can pick it unambiguously. This is a fully specified read operation.

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?

Confers clear context — the tool returns raw rows and the caller performs the analysis — which tells the agent when the tool fits (gathering log evidence) rather than doing reasoning itself. However, no sibling is named for exclusion (e.g., get_optimization_recommendations could plausibly overlap on 'what's wrong'), so when-not-to-use is left implicit.

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