fritz_system_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether log output is truncated, how large the response can get, or what the return format looks like. For a diagnostics tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient communication. The source/scoping information is front-loaded, which is the one structural strength.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description does not supply enough for confident invocation. An agent cannot tell what host identifier format is expected, what the default behavior is, or what the response shape will be.

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. It implies that 'host' selects the source device, which adds some meaning, but it never explains what the host value should be or what omitting it does (master default). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, even though the schema default of 30 only hints that it caps line count.

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 phrase 'Recent system log lines from the master, or from host' identifies the resource (system log lines) and the scoping options, which is enough to distinguish it from all 20 siblings, none of which deal with logs. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool retrieves rather than streams or clears logs.

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 explicit statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for diagnostics versus, say, fritz_connection_status. The only guidance is the implicit 'master or host' scoping, which the agent must interpret on its own.

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