list_auth_attempts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that the tool lists attempts and outcomes and can be filtered, and provides insight into credential effectiveness. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the ordering of results, or any rate limiting. The added filter explanations are helpful, but the description lacks explicit behavioral details beyond the basic list functionality.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a practical hint about what the data reveals. Every word contributes to understanding, making it an exemplary concise and well-structured description.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary purpose and key filters. However, it does not describe the response structure, pagination behavior beyond cursor, or potential side effects. While sufficient for basic calling, an agent might need more detail on default ordering or the exact fields returned, so completeness is moderate.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of the undocumented parameters: 'result' (success/failure), 'target', and 'credential_id' as filters. This adds semantic value beyond the bare schema. The documented parameters (limit, cursor, engagement) already have schemas, and the description does not duplicate that. The contribution is meaningful for the uncovered parameters.

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 identifies the tool as listing authentication attempts and their outcomes, and specifies the filters available (result, target, credential id). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic list tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so a small deduction for lack of direct differentiation.

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 the usage context: it shows which credentials work and what has been tried. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_recent_activity' or 'list_findings', nor does it mention exclusion conditions. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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