panelica_security_get_v1_security_login_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what data is returned (e.g., timestamps, IPs). The HTTP method 'GET' implies read-only, but explicit details are missing.

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 concise with only three lines: purpose, HTTP method/path, and category. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could integrate more context without becoming verbose; the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe the response structure or any constraints (e.g., time range or user filtering). For a simple tool, it is serviceable but lacks depth to fully prepare the agent.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema conveys, which is acceptable. The inclusion of HTTP method and path is extra but not parameter-related.

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 'Get login history', which directly indicates the action and resource. It is clear and specific, distinguishing it from sibling security tools like 'get_blocked_ips' or 'get_firewall_rules'. However, it does not elaborate on scope (e.g., user or system history), but the purpose is evident.

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 (e.g., panelica_audit_get_v1_activity_log). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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