ct_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the tool is read-only, returns returncode/stdout/stderr, is gated by a CTID allowlist depending on PROXIMO_ENABLE_EXEC, and fails closed with a disclosed blocked status. This provides complete transparency for a tool that executes in containers.

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, each dense with information: first sentence states purpose and return values, second explains gating and fail-closed behavior, third provides alternatives. No wasted words, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY', and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (container execution, gating, environment variable, fail-closed behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, when to use alternatives, and security constraints. No gaps in contextual information.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context about the tool's purpose and behavior, but does not expand on individual parameter semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter details adequately.

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 it tails journalctl for a systemd unit inside a container, with the verb 'tail' and resource 'systemd unit'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming ct_diagnose (for a fixed evidence battery) and ct_exec (for arbitrary commands), making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for tailing logs of a specific systemd unit. It also states when not to use it and alternatives: use ct_diagnose for a fixed evidence battery, ct_exec for arbitrary commands. Additionally, it explains the gating behavior and fail-closed mechanism.

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