读取 systemd 日志

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 clear. The description adds minimal extra context, essentially restating the scope (specified systemd service). It does not mention potential output size, filtering behavior, or connection details, but with annotations covering the read-only nature, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is not verbose, but it is too thin to convey necessary detail; still, for what it does say, it is efficient.

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 log-reading tool, the description lacks important context: it does not mention that an alias is required to specify the remote server, nor the meaning of the lines/since parameters for filtering output. While an output schema exists, the description does not indicate whether output is raw text or structured, and no usage context is provided.

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 0%, yet the description only hints at 'service' (specified systemd service) and ignores 'alias', 'lines', and 'since'. It fails to explain the meaning or usage of these parameters, placing the entire burden on the schema names, which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 '读取指定 systemd 服务的 journal 日志' clearly specifies the action (read) and the resource (journal logs of a specified systemd service). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ssh_execute and ssh_service_status by focusing on reading logs, which is a distinct operation.

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 is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., needing alias to SSH), or contrast with other log-related commands. It only states what it does without contextual direction.

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