query_utm_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return format ('One line per record: time, action, src -> dst, hostname/application/attack, policy') and the maximum row limit (500), but it does not mention permission requirements, device availability, or rate limits for a log query operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then lists parameter meanings and return format as bullet points. Every section earns its place, though the parameter list slightly repeats schema information.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of return values. Given the high schema coverage and the read-only nature of a query tool, the description is nearly complete, lacking only explicit notes on permissions or device state requirements.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful details beyond the schema: the maximum row limit (500), an example raw_filter ('action==blocked'), and the default log_type. These additions improve parameter understanding without being redundant.

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 states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('UTM (security) logs') and enumerates all supported log types. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling log tools like query_traffic_log and query_event_log by focusing on UTM security logs, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives a concrete use case ('to see which site or application was blocked for a host and by which profile'). However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this tool over query_traffic_log or query_event_log.

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