Summarize access logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description still adds real value: no credentials or network calls, viewer-scope suitability, and the redaction guarantee that query strings, headers and bodies are absent, plus the count-vs-list semantic. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination behavior.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the read-only and redaction guarantees come first, and the count-vs-list nuance is placed last where it belongs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the description covers scope, safety, and redaction well. The remaining gap is that none of the six parameters are explained despite 0% schema coverage, which is a meaningful hole for a filtering tool.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains app, who, since, until, decision, or limit (beyond implying that the event list is capped), leaving the agent to guess at filter formats and the limit's effect on counts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read local app access history') and clarifies output semantics ('Summaries count all matching events; the event list is limited'). It does not name the closely related siblings access_log or access_explain, so the agent must infer which one to pick.

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?

'Suitable for viewer scopes' gives a permission-based selection cue, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against access_log (raw events) or access_explain (decision explanation), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces here.

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