Event logs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavioral context: results are ordered newest-first and scoped to recent entries. It doesn't add pagination behavior or note that filtering happens server-side, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the tool's core action and read-order first, followed by the two log options and filters. The parentheticals carry real disambiguating value rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description conveys enough (recent, newest-first entries from two log types, filterable) to call it correctly. It omits entry shape/fields, a minor gap for a read-only log tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults, the 1-200 limit range, and the severity enum. The description only echoes the severity/text filtering, adding little semantic detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Read recent entries') plus the two concrete resources ('sel' and 'lclog') and even disambiguates what each log contains (hardware events vs configuration changes/firmware/jobs). No sibling tool offers log reading, so the distinction is immediate.

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 of what each log holds gives the agent a clear basis for choosing 'sel' vs 'lclog', and it names the filtering options. It stops short of explicitly comparing against siblings like idrac_health or idrac_status for troubleshooting, so it falls just short of a 5.

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