list_event_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns entries with specific fields and automatically tries common log paths (SEL, System, Log1), which is valuable for understanding its behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'Get' strongly implies it. The disclosure is reasonable for a list operation.

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?

The description is three concise sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds return fields and auto-discovery behavior. There is no redundant information or fluff; every sentence contributes useful context.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the resource types, automatic path handling, and the fields returned. It does not mention how to obtain resource IDs (though sibling tools list_systems/list_managers imply this), but the schema fills those gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the complexity level.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters, mainly reinforcing the auto-discovery behavior for log_id with examples. Since the schema covers parameters thoroughly, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description provides marginal extra meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving system event log entries from a system or BMC manager. It specifies the resource type and the data returned (Severity, Message, Created timestamp), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clear_event_log by focusing on reading logs. The verb 'Get' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 description makes the primary use case clear: to obtain event log entries. It also notes automatic log path discovery, which is a helpful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use clear_event_log instead), though the sibling list implies such distinctions. The context is strong enough without explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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