journal_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does make the read-only nature explicit via 'Read', which is the key behavioral fact. However, it discloses nothing beyond that — no return format, no behavior when the host is unreachable, no indication that line counts are capped (the max of 2000 lives only in the schema).

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is wasted text.

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?

For a simple read-only log tail with five fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could add a note on output shape or pagination behavior for very large journals, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter (including host and lines, which the description never mentions) is already documented in the schema. The description restates three of the five filters without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (systemd journal entries) with scope (recent) and filter dimensions (unit, time, priority). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling journal_errors, leaving that differentiation to be inferred from the priority parameter.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by unit, time and priority' hints at how to call it, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. host availability), and no routing to journal_errors for an error-only view. The agent must guess which of the two journal tools fits a given request.

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