security_diamonize_logsNOT IMPLEMENTED — returns an error. No interception log is kept, so there are no entries to return and no basis for any verdict about the host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of recent log entries to return (default 10, max 100). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | Interception and event log entries. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses the behavior: returns an error. It also states the underlying reason (no interception log), which is transparent beyond the read-only annotations. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's actual functionality.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two clear sentences that convey the essential information without any superfluous text. It is well-structured and to the point.
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 stub tool, the description is complete. It explains the non-implementation, the error behavior, and why no data exists. No further details about return values are necessary since it returns an error.
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 schema already describes the 'count' parameter with default and max, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameter, but since the tool is not implemented, the parameter's role is moot. The description does not contradict or enhance the schema.
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 tool is NOT IMPLEMENTED and will return an error. It explicitly mentions the absence of an interception log, making its non-functional purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from functional sibling tools.
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?
It explicitly instructs that the tool is not implemented, thereby guiding the agent to avoid using it. The explanation that no logs exist reinforces that any attempt will result in an error, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct name and purpose within its domain (billing, engine, media, security, storage, gateway). While there is some semantic overlap (e.g., engine_maxion_status vs. engine_maxion_diagnostics), the specific functions are clear enough to avoid misselection.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use domain_entity_action (engine_maxion_activate), others use domain_action (billing_activate), and one uses just domain_status (gateway_status). The inclusion of 'lineage0' and '0' suffixes adds further irregularity.
19 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a multi-service gateway. However, several tools are stubs (NOT IMPLEMENTED), and there are multiple status/diagnostic tools per domain, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
The tool surface is incomplete in several areas: security lacks functional quarantine and logging, engine lacks a working deactivate, and there is no way to manage billing subscriptions or view media history beyond a simple archive list. The presence of explicitly NOT IMPLEMENTED tools highlights these gaps.