get_service_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the remote/local execution behavior and parameter dependencies, but doesn't mention important aspects like authentication requirements beyond SSH username, error conditions, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential information without redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool.

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 (which handles return values), 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It's adequate for basic usage but incomplete for understanding error handling, authentication details, or operational constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in detail: service_name purpose, lines default value and meaning, host's optional/local behavior, and username's conditional requirement. Each parameter gets clear semantic context beyond just naming them.

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 specific action ('Get recent logs') and resource ('for a specific systemd service'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_journal_logs (general logs) or get_service_status (status rather than logs). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'executes locally if not provided' for host), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_journal_logs or read_log_file. It provides clear operational guidance but lacks sibling differentiation.

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