get_login_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the core functionality without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, rate limits, permission requirements, or whether data is real-time. The limit parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no wasted text.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return format, sorting, time range behavior, or how results are structured. Sibling tools like get_audit_log or search_audit_logs are likely more descriptive, making this incomplete for agent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it echoes the includeFailures concept but does not clarify formats, defaults, or relationships between 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 states 'Retrieve login and logout events for users, including failed login attempts.' It uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (login/logout events) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_audit_log or search_audit_logs by focusing on login-specific events.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_audit_log or search_audit_logs. The description does not mention prerequisites, filters, or when to prefer this over other tools.

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