Syslog Sources Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds no behavior beyond annotations and the output schema — no ordering of results, no note on what 'size' or 'last-write' represent, no mention of whether internal sources are excluded by default.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that useful structure (usage context, sibling contrast) is absent.

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, so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. For a simple read-only listing tool the description is adequate, with only sibling routing left implicit.

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 both 'pattern' and 'include_internal' fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about filtering or the internal-source toggle beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('List log sources available to query') plus the returned attributes (size, last-write time). It never names or contrasts with siblings like syslog_search_tool or syslog_stats_tool, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring it from names.

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?

'Available to query' hints that this is a discovery step before searching, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as syslog_stats_tool. Guidance is implied only.

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