check_kernel_errors

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral context. It states the operation audits logs and describes the return as a JSON string with categorized errors, root causes, and critical counters. It does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, though the read-only nature is reasonably inferred from 'audit'.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, one parameter line, and one return line. Every sentence adds information, and the key action and resource are front-loaded with no 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?

For a single-parameter read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return shape. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and behavioral caveats, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines limit as the maximum number of error entries and gives the range 1–50 and default 20, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Audit kernel logs for hardware failures, storage I/O errors, or application segfaults'. The error categories give concrete purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as check_oom_events or read_service_logs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_oom_events or get_system_health. The purpose sentence implies kernel-log triage, but no exclusions, contexts, or alternative routing are provided.

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