Emit a sample-export script for the fenced POC

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint): it explains the `--network none` container fence, that the emitted script carries no log10x hostname and the server refuses otherwise, the sampling equivalence to the SIEM path, and the exact return payload. It also discloses the only side effect, one 0755 script file, which is the sole tension with a strict reading of readOnlyHint, and the description surfaces it rather than hiding it.

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-loaded correctly: the read-only/renders-not-runs split comes first, then the POC step map, then args, then returns. It is dense and information-rich rather than padded, though the POC step enumeration and repeated 'same default as log10x_poc_from_siem_submit' refrains run longer than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally, and the description still tells the agent what comes back (script text, read-only API operations/credential variables, review checklist, exact next `log10x_poc_from_local` arguments). For a 7-param tool embedded in a multi-step workflow, nothing needed 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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail, and the description's inline arg list largely restates defaults. It does add cross-tool meaning the schema lacks, notably that `window`/`target_event_count` defaults deliberately match `log10x_poc_from_siem_submit` so both POC paths sample the same size, and the ./poc/logs mount rationale. That is real added value, but it is incremental over an already-excellent schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Render a read-only shell script that exports a log sample') and immediately delimits scope: it renders, it does not run, and it contacts nothing. It separates itself from the credentialed path (`log10x_poc_from_siem_submit`) and names the follow-on tool (`log10x_poc_from_local`), so an agent can place it among 50+ siblings without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'step 2 of the fenced POC' with steps 1/3/4 enumerated, plus a second trigger condition ('whenever the credentials live somewhere this process does not: a jump host, a locked-down laptop, another team'). The alternative path and the condition that selects it are both stated.

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