search_platform_logs

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the required permission scope ('infrastructure:logs:read'), notes that calls are 'governed by Arbiter constitutional policy' and 'sealed with ProofLink', and indicates the 'live' nature of the logs. It does not detail error handling or output format, which prevents a perfect score, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded and usage guidance following. Every sentence contributes value: it defines the action, explains return behavior, gives a use case, and states requirements. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, permissions, and a high-level idea of the return value ('matching log lines from journalctl'). However, without an output schema, it does not specify the exact format of the returned lines (e.g., timestamps, JSON structure) or any ordering/pagination behavior. For a log search tool with three simple parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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% with each parameter (service, lines, pattern) already documented in the input schema. The description adds only minor context, such as example service names ('itechsmart-api', 'djuane-ai', 'iself') and the phrase 'check last N lines' referring to the 'lines' parameter. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search live systemd journal logs for any iTechSmart service' and 'Returns matching log lines from journalctl filtered by service name and optional keyword pattern.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_iself_journal' (which likely targets a single service) and other logging/monitoring tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use for real-time troubleshooting: find errors, trace restarts, check last N lines of any service.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or 'when not to use' cases, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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