troubleshoot_authentication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: it returns the auth-event timeline, per-type counts, and highlighted failures. The phrase 'returns' strongly implies a read-only operation. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or mention rate limits/pagination, it gives substantial output detail and filtering behavior beyond the schema.

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-loaded with the purpose, then the output, then the focus. There is no wasted text; every clause adds value. It is concise while covering the essential aspects.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (timeline, counts, failures) and the filtering criteria. It doesn't mention org_id or duration explicitly, but those are documented in the schema. It could add a bit more about use cases or limitations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds a small semantic nuance by stating 'Focus on one identity with mac and/or user', clarifying that these parameters are alternative or combinable filters. It also reiterates the meanings of mac and user but does not significantly extend the schema descriptions for org_id or duration.

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's purpose: 'Troubleshoot 802.1X/MAB authentication using Access Assurance (NAC) events'. It specifies the resource (802.1X/MAB auth via NAC events), the action (troubleshoot), and the outputs (timeline, per-type counts, highlighted failures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nac_clients or generate_nac_dashboard by emphasizing identity-focused troubleshooting.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Focus on one identity with mac (client MAC) and/or user (username or certificate CN)'. This implies use for drilling into a specific client's auth issues. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use trace_client or find_client instead.

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