server_journal

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does declare 'Read only', which is the key safety signal. However, it silently leaves out that `as_root` elevates privileges and that `host` retargets the call to a remote machine — both material behaviors for an agent to know before calling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the parameter shorthand and the safety note. No wasted words; every clause adds information.

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 no explanation, which lowers the bar. Still, for a six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, omitting `host` and `as_root` (a privilege flag) leaves a meaningful gap in what an agent needs to call it safely.

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 all meaning comes from the description, yet it only explains four of six parameters (unit, lines, since, grep) and gives the useful example format '1 hour ago'. The two remaining parameters, `host` and `as_root`, are undocumented anywhere, so compensation is incomplete.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read the system log') and anchors it to the underlying tool (journalctl), so an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not explicitly contrast with docker_logs, the obvious sibling for container logs, leaving that distinction to be inferred.

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 read-only host-logging purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing between server_journal and docker_logs, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement alone.

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