system_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('liest'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. It adds value by mentioning error message retrieval, which is behavioral context beyond a simple read.

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 consists of two short sentences, each adding value: the first states the primary purpose, the second provides a concrete usage scenario. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and a key use case (error diagnosis). However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or that the result is a list of log entries. Given the lack of output schema, slightly more detail would be beneficial.

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 50%, with only the 'types' parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since coverage is not low.

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 reads the IP-Symcon status log, specifies the verb 'liest' (reads) and the resource 'Statusprotokoll', and distinguishes from sibling tools like script_execute by focusing on log reading.

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 explicitly states the tool is used after script errors for error diagnosis, providing a clear use case. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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