read_event_logs

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and local behavior. The description adds meaningful platform-specific behavior, including that Linux level means minimum severity while Windows level means exact level, and that Windows source defaults to 'System'.

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 compact, front-loaded, and organized by platform. Every sentence carries useful information, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete for calling this tool: it covers platform differences, level semantics, and source meanings. The main remaining gap is that contains, max_entries, and since_minutes are not explained in prose.

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 explains level values and distinguishes source semantics across platforms, but contains, max_entries, and since_minutes are not described, leaving important filtering and limiting parameters 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?

The description states the resource clearly as recent system events and names the platform-specific mechanisms (journalctl, Get-WinEvent, log show). It is specific enough for an agent to understand this reads system event logs, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like run_command or system_info.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Recent system events' and the platform-specific command mappings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It gives operational mechanics rather than routing guidance.

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