cyd_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state that the operation is a read/observation and names the log categories, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it omits details such as output format, retention window, ordering, whether the log is cleared or affected by reading, and error behavior, so disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's identity and purpose. The fragments 'Machine-specific (cyd)' and 'Observation, L2' are terse but not wasteful; however, 'L2' is unexplained and could confuse an agent, so it is not maximally concise.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description provides the basic subject and operation, but it does not describe the expected response, log contents beyond the three categories, or when this log is useful. Since there is no output schema, more context about the returned log data would be needed for the tool to be considered fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to explain. The description's reference to the specific log domains is the only semantic content, and for a parameter-free tool this meets the baseline expectation.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('retained recent UI, input, and application event log'), so an agent can tell this is a log-reading tool. The 'Machine-specific (cyd)' and 'Observation, L2' fragments add context but are cryptic, and the description does not explicitly distinguish it from other observation tools like cyd_ui_tree or cyd_diagnostics.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling observation/diagnostic tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the word 'Read'.

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