get_security_logs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context by listing example log categories but does not disclose filtering behavior, pagination, or return format. This is consistent with annotations but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful examples. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the large number of sibling log tools, the description lacks differentiation and fails to mention the optional device/time filters. It doesn't explain how this tool relates to get_logs, search_logs, or get_logs_by_topic. The presence of an output schema helps, but usage context is still sparse.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, device, time_filter). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the absence of any semantic guidance, especially for time_filter format, leaves the agent guessing.

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 'Gets security-related log entries' and gives concrete examples (login failures, blocked connections), which distinguishes it from generic log retrieval tools like get_logs. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for security-related log entries but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_logs, search_logs, or get_logs_by_topic. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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