check_log_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool scans log sources, reports parseability and format issues, and provides guidance for missing logs, all consistent with a non-mutating diagnostic step.

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 front-loaded with 'Run this first' and organized into a clear overview followed by output details. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, and the 'Returns' section may duplicate what the output schema already conveys, but nearly every sentence adds useful context.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description is complete: it states what it checks, what it reports, where missing logs can be found, and what the return structure looks like. Combined with rich annotations and an output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show which TPM logs are available, and whether they can be read and parsed.' It then enumerates concrete outputs such as devices found, time spans, SaaS/on-prem determination, and TPM versions, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_log_files or search_logs.

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 says 'Run this first,' giving a clear directive on when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous and actionable.

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