service_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It accurately communicates a read-only operation (journalctl -u), but doesn't disclose potential edge cases like permissions required or behavior for nonexistent units.

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 sentence, immediately states the primary resource (journal entries for a systemd unit), and includes the equivalent command. No redundant information.

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 simple read-only log retrieval with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately. It doesn't mention the return format, but the output schema handles that, and the `journalctl -u` reference gives familiarity.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that `unit` is the systemd unit and `lines` controls the number of entries returned. However, it doesn't detail the expected format of `unit` (e.g., with or without `.service`).

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 specifies the tool retrieves the last journal entries for a systemd unit, using the `journalctl -u` equivalent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `container_logs` (which target containers) and `service_status` (which reports status, not 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 implies usage for retrieving recent logs from systemd-managed services. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the systemd unit focus differentiates it from container-related log tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, which is a minor gap.

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