ssh_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key stateful trait—follow=true makes subsequent calls return only new lines and equates this to tail -f—and notes the supported log backends. It does not discuss connection state or limits, but there is no contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; purpose, source modes, and follow behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful operational 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?

For eight parameters and a stateful follow mode, the schema covers parameter meanings and the description covers the stateful semantics, so the invitation is actionable. Without an output schema, a bit more about the exact response shape or how to end follow would be ideal, but the core use is complete enough.

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 the structured fields already document all eight parameters in detail. The description only lightly reinforces source types and follow semantics rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

Description states a specific verb-resource pair ('Query logs from a remote server') and enumerates the supported source kinds (file tailing, journalctl, Docker), making the tool's role unambiguous. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like ssh_exec, ssh_status, or sftp_read even without naming them.

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 appropriate context is clear: this is the tool for retrieving log output over SSH, with mode-specific guidance for file, journalctl, and Docker sources, plus follow behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it misses the top bar for explicit routing.

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