login_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that each section has a 'capped' indicator meaning the window was not fully scanned, and counts should be treated as lower bounds. This is valuable behavioral information, though auth needs and rate limits are not mentioned.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise, but the second sentence could be more streamlined. Overall, it earns its space 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?

The description explains behavioral aspects like capped windows but does not describe return values (no output schema). Parameter details are missing, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 0%, meaning the schema only provides parameter names and types. The description adds no information about any of the four parameters (top, hours, domain, include_failures), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool audits login logs focusing on Google-auto-disabled accounts, suspicious logins, and failure top-N. It clearly identifies the verb (audit) and resource (login log), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like daily_brief or health_check; however, the focus on login events makes it distinct.

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 provides some guidance by mentioning combining with a Directory suspended-users snapshot for current state, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to siblings.

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