pve_node_syslog

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only ('No state change'), returns a list of entry dicts, and enforces a maximum limit of 5000 entries (higher values rejected). No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden; it adequately covers key behaviors for a read operation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and read-only hint. Every sentence adds value, with no filler 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (fetch list), the presence of an output schema, and the clear description, the description provides complete context: purpose, behavior, constraints, and distinction from an alternative. No additional details are necessary.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new information beyond the schema for parameters 'node' and 'proximo_target', though it reiterates the limit behavior already documented.

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 verb (fetch), resource (syslog entries from a PVE node), and purpose (log inspection). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pve_node_journal, which handles the systemd journal.

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 mentions an alternative tool for systemd journal queries (pve_node_journal), guiding when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool beyond 'for log inspection', which is implied.

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