list_remote_audit_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one useful trait — the logs are compressed — but says nothing about required permissions, whether the host must be connected, pagination/limits, or failure behavior. For a remote-access tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise, but brevity here shades into under-specification rather than demonstrating efficient information packing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and this is a simple list operation over one parameter. Still, the undocumented 'alias' parameter and the absence of any connectivity/permission context leave the definition only minimally adequate for a remote-host tool.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description never explains the single 'alias' parameter, leaving the agent to guess it refers to a configured host alias. A one-param tool with no param documentation anywhere is a real gap, though the semantics are at least inferable from the sibling list_hosts/get_host family.

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 and resource ('Elenca i log audit compressi') scoped to the remote host, which distinguishes it from the local sibling list_audit_logs and from read_remote_audit_log. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the distinction.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_audit_logs or read_remote_audit_log, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the host must be reachable or that an alias must already exist). The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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