pcs_logs_common

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a read operation ('retrieve') but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it requires elevated permissions (though a sudo parameter exists), what specific log files are considered 'common,' or the exact behavior of the journal snippet inclusion. The lack of detail on side effects, prerequisites, or return format is a significant gap.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately succinct and front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy to scan. No word is wasted.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a relatively complex tool with 7 parameters, the description is far too brief. It does not explain what 'common' logs means, how the journal snippets are selected, what format the output takes, or how the parameters affect behavior. An agent cannot confidently determine what this tool returns or how to tailor a call for a specific need. The presence of specialized siblings also demands clearer scoping.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description only adds the phrase 'optional journal snippets,' which loosely maps to includeJournal but does not explain the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema already defines each parameter, the description adds minimal additional meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 the action (retrieve) and the resource (common Pacemaker/Corosync logs) with a modifier (common) that hints at a standard set. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools pcs_logs_tail and pcs_logs_journalctl, which likely serve narrower purposes. The phrase 'optional journal snippets' suggests a combined scope, but without further detail the distinction from siblings is left to inference.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings pcs_logs_tail or pcs_logs_journalctl. The description does not state what scenarios favor this tool (e.g., 'use this when you need a broad overview of logs') or when to choose the more specialized tools. The agent is left without explicit routing advice.

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