Логи событий сервера

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

Annotations do not mark the tool as read-only, so the description clarifies that it returns log data. It also discloses the behavioral boundary that only hypervisor-level lifecycle events are included, not application logs or syslog. It omits details like pagination or output format, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose and examples; the second adds diagnostic use and explicit exclusions. It is front-loaded and every phrase contributes value.

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 simple read-like tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, why it is useful, and what is excluded. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the shape or fields of the returned log entries, but given the low complexity this is not a major omission.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage: server_id is described as required, and order has an enum with a default and Russian description. The tool description adds domain context about event types but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource pairing ('Возвращает лог жизненного цикла сервера') and lists concrete event types (install, reboot, shutdown, reinstall). It further distinguishes itself from application logs and syslog, making its scope unambiguous relative to any logging-related sibling 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 gives a clear use case ('Полезно для диагностики — почему сервер сейчас в off, когда последний reinstall') and explicitly states what it is not for ('НЕ application logs и НЕ syslog'). It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the when/when-not guidance is strong.

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