system_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: results are returned newest-first and span three distinct log categories. It does not disclose retention window, max entries available, or pagination 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?

Two short sentences with the returned content and ordering front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious filter rule. Zero filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be restated. Safety is covered by annotations, and the description covers content, ordering, and filtering. The remaining gap is the limit parameter's behavior (default and ceiling), which is left entirely to the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain category meaningfully (substring match, with concrete examples like 'DHCP' and 'Access Control'), but says nothing about limit, which silently defaults to 50 and bounds the result set size. Partial compensation for two undocumented 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?

Names the specific resource (router log entries) and its ordering (newest first), plus the entry types returned (DHCP leases, Access Control decisions, attack warnings). It's a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the retrieval purpose is unambiguous. No sibling tool deals with logs, so it is inherently distinguished from the rest of the toolset.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the other diagnostics-oriented siblings such as router_status, traffic_stats, or who_is_new. The only usage hint is how the category filter behaves, which is invocation mechanics rather than selection guidance.

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