get_sys_log

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which cover the safety profile and non-exhaustive nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose (debugging/auditing). It does not detail any constraints like pagination, limits, or the structure of log entries, but the annotations sufficiently convey behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with only two optional parameters, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations that cover read-only and open-world hints, the description is adequately complete. It could mention the open-world hint explicitly, but annotations fulfill that role.

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 schema already describes both parameters (limit and query) with examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter information. However, the description also does not provide any additional semantics or context that would aid the agent in using the parameters effectively.

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 the tool retrieves system log entries and identifies the purpose (debugging or auditing). It directly answers what the tool does and for what reason, but it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., system logs from the ServiceNow platform) to fully distinguish from other log tools like 'get_email_log' or 'get_event_log'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing among sibling tools with similar logging purposes. An effective description would include explicit usage recommendations or contrasts.

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