ise_dc_view_administrator_logins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description lists the exact filterable columns, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose the report's time scope behavior, whether results are limited, ordering, or pagination characteristics beyond what the parameters already imply. The column list provides transparency but behavioral details (return limits, paging) are absent.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a column enumeration. It's front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently lists the data columns. The column list is somewhat long but useful and not redundant. No padding or filler.

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?

This is a view/query tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. The description lists available columns and provides the 'Report' framing, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explain what a default query returns (e.g., default filtering, sort order, whether it returns recent logins only), nor typical use case. The days_back parameter references 'the view's time column' without clarity on which column that is. Adequate but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names the filterable columns, which adds value by telling the agent what columns are available to filter/order on. However, it doesn't add semantics beyond what parameters already document — the columns list helps but is supplementary. No additional parameter context like valid values or example formats.

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's a report giving data about administrator logins to ISE, and lists the specific columns available. It identifies itself as a '[Report]' which helps distinguish it from other ise_dc_* views. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ise_dc_view_change_configuration_audit or other views, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

The description identifies this as a report of admin login data but doesn't specify when to choose it over alternatives. There's no guidance on typical use cases (e.g., security auditing) or distinctions from other view tools. The '[Report]' prefix gives some context but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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