syslog_stats_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the function without mentioning that it is read-only, what it returns beyond the output schema, or any side effects. It essentially restates the tool's name with slightly more detail, adding little beyond what is already obvious.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. The core purpose is front-loaded and directly stated. It is efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for an agent scanning many tool definitions.

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, combined with a fully documented schema and an output schema, provides enough for basic correct invocation. However, it omits context such as common use cases, behavior when source is omitted, or time-window interpretation nuances. These are not critical given the schema, but the description alone would leave an agent without full operational 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (top, since, source) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no supplementary details about parameter usage or formatting. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Summarise') and identifies the resource ('log volume and error rate per source'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings that search, tail, or list sources. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from syslog_grep_tool or syslog_tail_tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply it is for aggregated statistics, but there is no direct statement like 'use this for summaries, not raw logs' or reference to sibling tools. The context is implied by the purpose, but not enforced.

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