Read the kernel ring buffer to troubleshoot hardware and driver issues. Filter by log level to focus on errors and warnings.
Read the kernel ring buffer for hardware/driver logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Filter by log level (e.g., 'err,warn') | |
| privileged | No | Run as root | |
| output_format | No | Output format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the kernel ring buffer and its purpose for hardware/driver logs, which is helpful context, but it does not disclose details such as whether the buffer is cleared after reading, whether the tool requires privileges (though there is a 'privileged' parameter implying that), or how much data is returned. The description adds some behavioral context but falls short of fully disclosing the tool's internal behavior.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and is highly efficient. Every word earns its place.
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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, none required, no output schema), the description is somewhat brief. It explains the tool's primary purpose but lacks details on return format, potential side effects, or parameter usage specifics. An agent might still need to inspect the schema fully to understand how to use it correctly, but for a read-only system tool, it may be sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain the allowed values for 'level' or 'output_format', or clarify the effect of 'privileged'. Since the schema is fully descriptive, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: reading the kernel ring buffer specifically for hardware and driver logs. The verb 'Read' specifies the action and the resource 'kernel ring buffer' is precise, distinguishing it from other log-related tools like logs/journal-control or logs/logins, which focus on different log sources.
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 for hardware/driver diagnostics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like logs/journal-control or logs/logins, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It gives a clear context (kernel ring buffer) but no guidance on when not to use it or when a sibling would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.