Syslog Stats 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. It does disclose the core behavior — aggregated volume and error-rate metrics keyed by source — which tells the agent this is a read/aggregate operation, but it says nothing about cost, permissions, or whether it scans the whole window, and there is no note that it does not return raw log lines.

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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though for a tool in a six-member family it is arguably thinner than ideal, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 not be explained, and the input schema is fully described at 100% coverage. The description supplies the aggregation semantics the structured fields cannot express, which is sufficient for an agent to call this low-complexity stats tool correctly.

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 'top', 'since', and 'source' are already fully documented with defaults and formats. The description's 'per source' phrase loosely connects to the 'source' and 'top' parameters but adds no syntax, ordering, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (summarise) and resource (log volume and error rate), plus the grouping key (per source), so an agent can tell this is an aggregation tool rather than a content-retrieval one. It stops short of naming or contrasting any of the five syslog siblings (search, grep, tail, context, sources), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the aggregation framing suggests using this for metrics overviews and the siblings for log content. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer routing from the verb alone.

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