Emit a sample-export script for the fenced POC

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the server runs under `--network none`, never executes the emitted script, refuses to return a script containing a log10x hostname, writes export-sample.sh at mode 0755, and touches nothing. It also frames the readOnlyHint=true annotation explicitly ('it renders text and writes one script file; it contacts nothing'), so no hidden side effects are left unstated.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the network split before the procedural detail, and the POC step enumeration earns its length by telling the agent where this fits. It is somewhat verbose and repeats the 'same default as log10x_poc_from_siem' rationale across two params, which is minor redundancy rather than waste.

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?

For a 7-param tool with an output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, what it returns (script text, touched API operations/credential vars, checklist, next-call args), follow-up steps, and the unsupported analyzers with a manual workaround. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds cross-tool meaning by explaining why defaults match log10x_poc_from_siem (so both paths sample the same size) and when to lower target_event_count. That rationale is genuinely beyond the schema, though much of the per-arg text restates enum/default facts already documented.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Render a read-only shell script that exports a log sample.' It immediately names its scope (user's own analyzer, own credentials, chosen machine) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings log10x_poc_from_local and log10x_poc_from_siem, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: step 2 of the fenced POC (with steps 1, 3, 4 enumerated) and whenever credentials live somewhere the process cannot reach. It also states what it does NOT do (does not run the script, contacts nothing) and points at the alternative path for credentialed sampling, leaving nothing to inference.

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