journal_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, the transport (journalctl over SSH with a sudo -n fallback), and enumerates the two error conditions (journal_not_available, journal_permission_denied). It omits rate limits, timeout behavior, and what happens when no problems are found, so it falls just short of exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the aggregation scope, followed by the read-only/transport caveat, then the return shape and errors. The inline JSON return skeleton is dense but justified given there is no output schema. Every sentence carries information, with only minor density cost.

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 three-parameter read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the aggregation facets, the access mechanism and fallback, the exact return structure per section, and the failure modes. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so instance_id, top_n, and since_minutes are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how since_minutes interacts with the 'CURRENT failed units' section) beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (aggregate) and a specific resource (journald problems on one instance), then enumerates the exact facets: error-priority entries per unit, OOM kills, restart/failure records, and current failed units. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_logs, docker_logs, auth_log_summary, and service_state without needing to name them.

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 scope statement ('journald problems on one instance') gives clear context for when this tool applies versus generic log or service-state tools. However, it names no explicit alternative and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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