host_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Tail logs" implies a read-only operation, but nothing states permissions, whether it touches remote hosts live, or rate/pagination behavior — though the source-resolution semantics (unprefixed names, unit:/container:/file:/journal prefixes) do add genuine behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in five words, then a dense but purposeful second sentence. The example-heavy source sentence is long yet every clause carries distinct routing information, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally describe return format and any host-access constraints, but it stops at invocation semantics. It fully covers the hardest part (source resolution) yet leaves the response shape and remote-execution behavior unexplained.

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 already 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping the ambiguous `source` string to concrete resolution rules (service name -> container stdout/systemd journal, file name -> /var/log paths, explicit prefix forms). That is meaningfully beyond the schema's terse "service name, log name, unit:<u>..." line.

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+resource ("Tail logs on a host") that is immediately understandable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling journal_list, which presumably also surfaces journal output, so an agent must guess which to pick.

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 extensive source-format enumeration implies how to invoke the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like journal_list or host_inspect. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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