journal_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'show recent system journal errors,' which is very minimal. It does not clarify what 'errors' entails (e.g., logs from journalctl, severity levels), whether it is read-only, requires root, or what the output format looks like. A mutation or sensitive operation indicator is missing.

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, short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the brevity leaves critical information missing, making it more under-specified than efficiently 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (context signal) and 2 optional parameters, the description should at least explain the scope of 'errors' and what the output represents. The current description is too sparse to allow an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially without parameter explanations.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Neither 'hours' nor 'lines' are explained in the description. The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names ('Hours', 'Lines') and type ('integer'), which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 ('show') and resource ('recent system journal errors'). It is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like 'systemd_failed' or 'diagnostic_command', which have different purposes. The lack of specificity about 'errors' (e.g., severity levels) prevents a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'systemd_failed' or 'diagnostic_command'. The description implies it is for recent errors but does not explain when this is the best choice or when to use a different system diagnostics tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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