Node Acl Log

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's extra detail is the real value: key/channel names are hidden, findings flag repeated auth failures and denial spikes, and broader ACL enumeration commands are deliberately not used. That adds meaningful privacy and output-shape context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the core resource and returned fields are front-loaded. The parenthetical field list and exclusion sentence are efficient, though the phrasing is compressed enough to require a careful read.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with a complete input schema, existing output schema, and annotation coverage, the description supplies enough scope and privacy context. It could more explicitly position itself among sibling logs, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional count parameter, and the description does not add syntax such as default 25 or max 128. With the schema fully documenting it, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the exact resources (ACL WHOAMI and ACL LOG entries) and the content returned (reason, user, client address, count) while excluding ACL LIST/GETUSER. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, and it does not differentiate from sibling diagnostic tools, so it is strong but not category-leading.

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?

It frames the use case around auth failures, denied commands, and denial spikes, which implies when the tool is relevant. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not guidance against sibling tools; the ACL LIST/GETUSER exclusion is about commands, not alternative tools.

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