journal_errors

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

The description explicitly states it is read-only (journalctl over SSH with sudo -n fallback), provides return JSON structure, and lists possible errors. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the aggregate summary and providing essential details on behavior, return format, and errors without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters all described in schema, and the description explains return JSON and errors. No output schema exists but description compensates. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or limits.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter details beyond the schema. It mentions the lookback window implicitly but not explicitly.

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 it aggregates journald problems on one instance, listing specific items like error-priority entries, OOM kills, restarts, and failed units. It distinguishes from sibling tools (AWS, Docker, etc.) which are unrelated.

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 systemd journal analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives are mentioned.

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