Syslog Context Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context — omitting 'source' spans the whole fleet, which is how correlation happens — but says nothing about ordering, whether the ±60s window is a hard bound, result caps, or that this is a pure read operation.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the usage cue. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so return values and inputs need no explanation here. The description covers purpose and the key triggering context; the main remaining gap is the lack of any routing guidance relative to the five sibling syslog tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the relative-timestamp format ('30m') and the before/after window defaults is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the 'source' omission behavior, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('Return log entries surrounding a specific moment'), which is a distinct capability from siblings like syslog_search_tool, syslog_grep_tool, and syslog_tail_tool. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Use this after an alert names a time' gives a concrete triggering condition, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming alternatives such as syslog_search_tool for non-time-anchored queries.

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