get_sys_log

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining where scoped logs land (syslog_app_scope) and how gs.info()/gs.log() output is routed. It doesn't discuss return format or pagination, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose; the second clarifies the key parameter nuance. No wasted words.

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 log retrieval tool with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and the only notable behavioral nuance (app_scope). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with all three parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the app_scope behavior but doesn't add new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides for limit and query.

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 for debugging or auditing, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes between scoped and global logs, which differentiates it from any potential log-related siblings.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the app_scope parameter to read scoped-application logs instead of the global syslog. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist, so it falls short of full exclusions.

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