view_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'View' implying a read operation, but it does not disclose whether permissions are required (e.g., sudo), performance impact, or how the output is structured. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the meaning of 'alias', the format of output, or any important behaviors like pagination or filtering. The description lacks completeness for a log-viewing tool.

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 50% (two of four parameters have descriptions). The description adds context that 'service' can be omitted for kernel/system logs, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the required 'alias' parameter or the 'lines' and 'since' parameters beyond what the schema shows. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 'View systemd journal logs for a service or the whole system.' It specifies the verb (view), resource (systemd journal logs), and scope (service or whole system), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tail_log_file that target specific files.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for systemd journal logs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from file-oriented log tools.

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