Query Syslog

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

Despite readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: newest-first ordering, callable repeatedly for new entries, and return content. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the read-only nature is already annotated, making this a solid 4.

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 six sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then practical use cases and table selection. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only log query tool, the description covers purpose, usage, result structure, ordering, and table distinctions. With schema covering all parameters and annotations declaring safety, there are no critical gaps, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions, enums, defaults, and an example. The description adds little beyond the schema (only the table selection guidance is partially redundant). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the ServiceNow system log (syslog) to check errors, warnings, and debug output, listing returned fields and ordering. It is specific and distinct from generic query tools, fulfilling the 'verb+resource' criterion.

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?

It provides concrete use cases (monitoring script execution, post-deployment checks, debugging), explains that it can be polled, and distinguishes between the syslog and syslog_app_scope tables. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it misses the top tier.

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