pikvm_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait -- ordering, with newest lines at the end -- but says nothing about whether output is truncated, whether this needs authentication, or how the multi-server case is handled.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and the ordering note is placed immediately after. No filler, though the second line spends words on the one parameter that least needs explanation while the two non-obvious ones get nothing.

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-value explanation is not required, and the core purpose is clear. However, for a tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the omission of server and max_chars semantics leaves real gaps.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It explains only 'lines' (and only restates what is largely obvious from the name); 'server' and 'max_chars' -- the latter implying output truncation behavior -- are left entirely undocumented.

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 ('Show the PiKVM (kvmd) log'), which is unambiguous and distinct from read/write config or power siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest alternates (pikvm_status, pikvm_config_read), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 reach for this tool versus pikvm_status, pikvm_info, or pikvm_config_read, and no mention of prerequisites or per-server targeting. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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