get_security_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about the specific log types covered (logins, failures, blocked connections), enhancing clarity beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, parameter behavior is entirely unexplained, and with three optional parameters and many sibling log tools, the description is incomplete for proper invocation. It does not mention how parameters affect results or clarify filtering behavior, so it is minimally acceptable.

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%, so the description should compensate for the parameters. However, it does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, device, time_filter) or their roles. The description provides no added value for parameter semantics.

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 retrieves security-related log entries and gives specific examples (logins, failures, blocked connections). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and is easily distinguished from generic log tools like get_logs or search_logs.

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 its use for security logs but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_logs_by_topic or search_logs. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, which could be ambiguous given many log retrieval siblings.

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