logs/journal-control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only query operation, and importantly explains the privileged requirement and why it exists ('journalctl only exists on the host, never in this daemon's own image'). It does not mention output format, volume, or failure modes, but the key behavioral caveat is well covered.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important operational caveat is placed prominently. Both sentences earn their place: one states the tool's function, the other states a critical deployment requirement.

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 complete parameter schema and the absence of annotations, the description covers the main operational risk (privileged/host access) and clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It could add a bit more about output expectations or when to prefer sibling log tools, but for a read-only journal query it is largely 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 baseline is 3. The description adds some rationale for the privileged parameter, but it largely restates what the schema already says ('required in containerized deployments'). No additional semantics are provided for the other eight parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Queries') and clearly identifies the resource ('the systemd journal') with the helpful 'journalctl equivalent' shorthand. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as logs/dmesg or logs/logins, so it stops short of 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like logs/dmesg or logs/logins. The only usage-related note, 'Requires privileged: true in containerized deployments', addresses an environment prerequisite rather than tool selection.

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