ssh_failed_logins

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the data source (auth.log or journalctl) but does not mention permissions (e.g., root required), output format, or potential limitations (e.g., log rotation). Adequate but lacking depth.

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 two short paragraphs. It includes parameter explanations, though structuring them as a list would improve scannability. No redundant information.

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 tool has an output schema, so return value details are not required. The description covers the core functionality and parameters. Minimal but sufficient for a straightforward tool given the output schema existence.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the tool description explains both parameters: 'session_name' as the SSH session to use and 'count' as the number of entries. This adds meaningful semantics beyond type and default values.

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 it shows 'recent failed login attempts' from specific sources (auth.log or journalctl), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_last_logins (which likely shows all logins) and ssh_search_logs (general search).

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 like ssh_last_logins or ssh_search_logs. The description does not include context about scenarios (e.g., security auditing, troubleshooting) or when not to use it.

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