push_to_siem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses batching, return fields (number of events, provider), and prerequisites. However, it does not explain error handling, idempotency, or behavior if SIEM is not configured.

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 well-structured with a clear first line, concise details, and a separate Args section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and an alternative. It could be more explicit about the return format, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning: 'since' is ISO 8601 start timestamp, 'until' is ISO 8601 end, 'action' filters by action name with examples, 'limit' has a default and description. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool pushes audit log events to a configured SIEM (Splunk HEC or Datadog Logs API), specifies it sends matching rows in a single batched request, and returns the count and provider. It also distinguishes itself from the pull-based export alternative.

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 provides explicit context: requires org_admin role, requires configured SIEM destination via update_siem_config, and mentions the pull-based export as an alternative. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions.

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