modsecurity_audit_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so this description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool provides a summary, without disclosing whether it is read-only, what time range or scope it covers, how the data is aggregated, or what limitations exist.

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 very concise with no filler, but it is an incomplete noun phrase rather than a full statement of behavior. It is under-specified rather than elegantly structured.

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?

The output schema and zero parameters reduce complexity, but the description does not convey what the summary contains, whether it is system-wide or per-domain, or how it relates to other audit/modsecurity tools. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing the description needs to explain about parameter meaning. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 'ModSecurity audit log summary' is essentially a spaced-out restatement of the tool name with the word 'log' inserted. It offers no verb or action, so it does not clearly explain what the tool does or what kind of summary it produces, and it does not differentiate it from siblings like modsecurity_audit_entry or audit_searh.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related audit/modsecurity tools such as audit_recent, audit_searh, modsecurity_audit_entry, or modsecurity_all_configs. No use cases, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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