pcs_logs_journalctl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read (non-mutating) via 'Read' and adds the useful default-units behavior. However, it does not disclose remote execution implications, sudo requirements, or what happens if no units are specified, so some transparency gaps remain.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the operation, the underlying command, and the default behavior. Every word earns its place with no padding or 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?

Given the tool has no required parameters, a fully self-documenting schema, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain how this tool relates to the sibling log tools or provide usage context that would help an agent choose between them, so it is complete enough for basic invocation but not fully contextual.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only one semantic detail beyond the schema: that the tool defaults to pacemaker and corosync units. This is useful but not substantial enough to raise the score above the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a clear action ('Read journal logs via journalctl') and specifies the default scope ('pacemaker and corosync units'). This is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling log tools like pcs_logs_tail or pcs_logs_common.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'defaults to pacemaker and corosync units' implies a typical use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mention, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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