service_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only fetch operation and lists supported filters, but it does not disclose authorization needs, error behavior (e.g., unknown service), or whether it queries only the current boot. These are meaningful gaps for a log tool.

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 three sentences with no fluff: the first states what it does, the second lists capabilities, and the third gives use cases. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, filters, and use cases. It lacks explicit mention of return format and privilege requirements, but these are partially inferable from 'logs' and 'fetch'.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description summarizes filtering by time range, priority, and grep, which maps directly to since, priority, and grep parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('recent journal logs for a systemd service'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also lists filtering capabilities, distinguishing it from sibling tools like service_status, which report status rather than logs.

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 provides clear usage context: 'debugging service issues and monitoring application output.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it over process_list or service_status.

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