ct_logs

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares read-only nature, output structure (returncode, stdout, stderr), gating via CTID allowlist, and failure behavior. This is comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds 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?

While purpose, behavior, and constraints are covered, the lack of parameter descriptions creates a notable gap. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter semantics. Overall adequate but incomplete.

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 only 25%, yet the description adds no explanation for the undocumented parameters (ctid, unit, lines). It only mentions 'container' and 'systemd unit' in passing, leaving the agent to infer from names. This is insufficient.

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 'Tail journalctl for a systemd unit inside a container (read-only)', specifying a concrete verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ct_exec and ct_diagnose by focusing on log retrieval.

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 usage context: 'Container-specific diagnostic' and explains constraints (allowlist, fails closed if exec disabled). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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