logs_authlog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: logs are server-wide, not per-device, which explains the absence of a hostname parameter. This goes beyond simple read-only disclosure and provides useful context for the agent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no filler. The second sentence adds essential scope information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, and a key caveat. All necessary details are already in the structured fields.

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% for all 5 parameters (limit, start, to_ts, from_ts, sortorder), each already has clear descriptions. The tool description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The 'no hostname' note indirectly clarifies the lack of a device parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'authentication logs' from 'LibreNMS', clearly distinguishing it from sibling log tools like logs_syslog and logs_alertlog. The added statement about being server-wide further clarifies its scope and differentiates it from per-device tools.

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 when to use: for authentication logs. It provides a key context detail – auth logs are server-wide rather than per-device – and explains why no hostname is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the purpose is unambiguous among sibling tools.

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