log_event_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool queries logs, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, or whether it resets any state. More transparency is needed.

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 concise sentence with a front-loaded verb. It is efficient but slightly underdeveloped; adding a brief note on pagination or source selection would improve without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters and output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits guidance on how to use parameters for filtering (e.g., pagination, source, VDOM). The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks completeness for effective tool usage.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not explain how parameters like rows, start, source, or vdom enhance querying. Thus, no extra value over schema.

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 queries system event logs and provides concrete examples (admin logins, config changes, system alerts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_event_user or log_traffic_forward that handle other log types.

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 system event logs but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The examples give context but lack explicit guidance on when not to use this tool.

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