pmg_node_syslog

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

With no annotations, the description indicates it's a read operation and requires configuration. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or detailed behavioral traits beyond the basic read and config requirement.

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 concise with two clear sentences and a parameter explanation. It front-loads the purpose and prerequisite. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which reduces the need to explain return values. The description covers purpose, config requirement, and parameter semantics. It is complete for a read-only syslog fetch tool, though it doesn't mention potential errors.

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 description explains the roles of limit, service, since, until, and start, adding meaning beyond the schema. The schema coverage is only 14%, so the description compensates by clarifying most parameters' purposes, though node and proximo_target are not elaborated.

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 gets PMG node syslog entries, specifying it is a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_node_syslog and other PMG tools by focusing on syslog for PMG nodes.

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 mentions a prerequisite (PROXIMO_PMG_* config) but does not compare to alternatives or specify when not to use it. It gives some context but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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