List System Log Files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a non-destructive list operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, authorization requirements, or that it only returns file names. The word 'list' helps, but more could be disclosed.

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 sentence that directly states the action, includes relevant examples, and specifies the scope. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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, parameterless list operation, the description is largely complete. However, since there is no output schema, it could explicitly mention that the return is a list of file names or whether the files are grouped by node. It is adequate but leaves a small gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description needed to add no parameter-specific meaning. The context about tenant worker nodes is not a parameter but useful domain info. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4.

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 lists available system log files, specifying types (http, trace, etc.) and scope (tenant worker nodes). This makes its purpose distinct from sibling tools that deal with message processing logs or integration artifacts.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool is for viewing system log files on tenant worker nodes, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for most use cases, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance compared to related tools.

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