syslog_grep_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Regex search,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm safety, nor does it mention behavior like result limits, sorting, or whether the search is across all entries by default. The tool's behavior beyond the search intent is opaque.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core function and scope efficiently. Given the schema already documents parameters, this length is appropriate and well-structured.

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 is minimal and omits crucial context: it does not explain when to prefer this tool over syslog_search_tool or syslog_tail_tool, does not mention the output format (though an output schema exists), and does not clarify that regex matching is case-insensitive (only noted in the pattern parameter schema). An agent has limited information to correctly invoke this tool in the broader workload context.

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 every parameter having a description in the input schema. Therefore the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating that the 'source' parameter restricts to one named source, which is already documented in the schema. The description does not clarify any parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (syslog sources), and specifies regex matching. It also notes the scope (all sources or one named source). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like syslog_search_tool, which likely performs a similar search but perhaps without regex, so an agent cannot easily distinguish which to use.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for regex search but does not explicitly mention exclusions or direct the agent to syslog_search_tool for non-regex searches. With several sibling search tools, this is a gap.

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