syslog_sources_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or any side effects. It also omits behavioral nuances like default filtering or how the 'include_internal' flag affects results, which are left entirely to the schema.

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 that states the action, target, and returned data without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 tool has an output schema covering return values, and the description succinctly explains the primary purpose. However, it doesn't mention optional behavior (e.g., how the pattern filter works or that internal sources are excluded by default), though these are documented in the schema. For a simple listing tool, this is nearly complete.

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% for both parameters (pattern and include_internal), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it focuses on the output fields rather than parameter usage, filters, or defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('log sources'), stating exactly what the tool returns (size, last-write time). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that search, grep, tail, or provide context, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 purpose implies usage—when you need to enumerate available sources—but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like syslog_search_tool or syslog_grep_tool. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned; usage is inferred rather than directed.

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