Get Journal Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful filter semantics (priority scale, relative time formats), but omits permission requirements, default line behavior, and truncation effects that would matter for a journal reader.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists filters in schema order. Slightly dense with colon-delimited clauses, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the schema and filters are explained, but with no output schema the description should ideally say what the returned log entries look like. Combined with the missing sibling routing and permission caveats, it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does marginally enrich the priority parameter by enumerating the full 0-7 / emerg-to-debug scale, which the schema only abbreviates as 'err, warning, info, debug, etc.' That said, it adds no new meaning for unit, lines, since, or until.

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 (Fetch) and resource (systemd journal logs) with scope qualification (optional filters). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like search_logs and tail_file, leaving the agent to infer which log-retrieval tool applies.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over search_logs or tail_file, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing elevated privileges to read journal data. The agent must guess based on tool names alone.

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