pve_node_syslog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It mentions the 'read' behavior and a 'limit capped at 5000', but does not disclose authentication requirements, what happens when node is null, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates purpose and a key constraint. It is concise with no wasted words, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It does not mention output format, parameter defaults or behavior, or how this tool relates to siblings like 'pve_node_journal'. The missing details mean an agent may fail to use it correctly.

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 33% (only 'proximo_target' has a description). The tool description only adds information about the 'limit' parameter (capped at 5000), but does not explain the 'node' parameter or how to use it. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action ('Fetch syslog entries'), the resource ('from a PVE node'), and the read-only nature ('(read)'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'pve_node_journal' or 'pmg_node_syslog' by specifying syslog on PVE 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pve_node_journal' or other node log tools. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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