ssh_get_audit_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact log file path (~/.ssh/mcp-ssh.log or SSH_LOG_FILE), the aggregation behavior, the returned fields (timestamp/host/username/tool/args/status/duration_ms), and output limits. This is detailed and transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every clause adds value—no filler. It efficiently covers file source, output format, filtering, and output limits.

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 is relatively simple, has no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides return fields, file location, filters, and a size cap, making it quite complete. Minor gaps include not specifying the size cap value or behavior when since_minutes is 0, but for a log query tool this is sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates by mentioning filter support for host, tool, and since_minutes, and notes that output is constrained by limit. It does not explain exact filter semantics (e.g., exact vs. partial match) or the meaning of since_minutes=0, but it covers all parameters at a functional level.

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 uses a specific verb '查询' (query) and resource '行为日志' (behavior logs), immediately distinguishing this tool from siblings like ssh_exec or ssh_scan. It also states it is read-only and intended for AI analysis, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates the use case: querying recent behavior logs for AI analysis, and it is read-only, differentiating it from execution tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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