sys_fr_log

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

With no annotations, the read-only note is the only behavioral disclosure, and it usefully signals that the call has no side effects. It does not, however, describe the returned log format, size limits, or any failure-related filtering behavior.

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 compact phrase that front-loads the essential facts: it is a log viewer and it is read-only. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Although the tool is simple to invoke due to zero parameters, the description lacks any detail about what 'failure-related' covers, what output the agent will receive, or how this tool differs from sibling logging tools. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient context for confident selection.

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 tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource as a 'failure-related log' and notes it is read-only, which is more informative than the cryptic name alone. However, it uses no explicit verb and does not say what kind of entries are included, so an agent gets only a vague sense of the operation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use sys_fr_log versus the many sibling log/status commands such as log_tail, log_filter, sys_syslog, or sys_cmdlog. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints are provided.

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