check_oom_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the word 'Inspect' suggesting a read-only operation and describes the output, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, does not mention permissions required, and does not describe failure modes (e.g., missing logs, insufficient permissions). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a one-line parameter explanation, and a return-value note. No redundant or extraneous text is present.

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 simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, read-only intent), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it omits details about behavior when no OOM events exist or how the JSON output is structured. These gaps are minor for this diagnostic 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?

The single parameter 'limit' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining its meaning, range (1 to 50), and default value (10). The parameter is effectively documented.

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 action ('Inspect kernel logs') and the specific subject ('Linux Out-Of-Memory (OOM) Killer invocations'). It also explains what is surfaced (terminated processes, PIDs, and RSS memory), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the focus on OOM events implies a diagnostic use case, it lacks direct guidance such as 'use this when checking for memory pressure' or 'use check_kernel_errors for general kernel issues'. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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