list-auth-attempts-node-source

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

The description only adds 'all' as a behavioral trait, but annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld. It does not disclose pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, or any side effects.

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 sentence of 8 words, which is concise. However, it could be slightly longer to include essential details without losing 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?

Given the simplicity and no output schema, the description is not fully complete. It fails to explain the 'source' aspect hinted in the name, and provides no information about output format, ordering, or default limits.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'node' with no description. The tool's description mentions 'node/source' but does not clarify what 'node' represents or how the source filtering works, if at all. Zero parameter coverage in the schema description.

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 lists all authentication attempts for a node/source. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'list-auth-attempts-node', and the mention of 'source' is not reflected in the input schema, causing ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-auth-attempts-node'. The context lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information.

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