system_log

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: 'recent' is undefined (time window? rotation? follow behavior?) and the return shape of log entries is undisclosed, though the idempotent/read-only framing means the omission is not risky.

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?

Two short lines with the resource stated first and the parameter note second; nothing is padded. The 'Args:' docstring residue is slightly mechanical but costs almost no tokens.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers what goes in but not what comes out — no indication of entry format or whether 'recent' is bounded. Adequate to invoke, thin for interpreting the result.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does supply the one thing the schema lacks: the valid range 1-1000 for limit and its meaning as a line count. It omits any note on the default of 100, which the schema does provide.

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-less but clear resource: 'Recent entries from the OPNsense system log', which tells an agent exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling firewall_log, which is the most likely confusion point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus firewall_log or suricata_status, nor any note on cost, freshness, or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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