syslog_search_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search collected logs' and gives no details about read-only behavior, result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no logs match. The tool has an output schema, but that is not shown and the description does not summarize return values or side effects.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently worded, and the key search dimensions are listed in a compact manner. It is slightly under-specified, but conciseness itself is good.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is sparse. It does not mention the 'program' filter, the default time window behavior (e.g., 'since' defaults to '1h'), or the case-insensitive regex pattern. It also does not clarify how this search differs from grep or tail. Given the complexity, a fuller description is needed to enable correct use.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely names the filters without describing formats, defaults, or interactions (e.g., that severity is minimum severity). The schema explains each parameter well, so the description adds no extra value.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('collected logs') and names key filter dimensions (source, time window, severity, pattern). It is specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like syslog_grep_tool or syslog_tail_tool, so an agent cannot immediately tell 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state conditions like 'use for historical searches' or exclude streaming/real-time use, nor does it mention the syslog_sources_tool for enumerating sources. An agent is left to infer usage from the vague 'Search collected logs'.

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