get_security_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns events but does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is minimal and lacks transparency into the tool's behavior beyond the basic return.

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 concise: three short sentences plus a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value (purpose, usage guidance, parameter details). There is no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should describe the return value format or structure. It only says 'Return recent security events' without specifying what fields or structure each event has. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully complete. The parameter documentation is good, but the return type is underspecified.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool's description compensates fully by documenting all three parameters (session_id, severity, limit) with their semantics, valid values, and defaults. This provides essential meaning that the schema alone does not convey.

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 the tool returns recent security events from the Scout security log, which is a specific verb and resource. It also provides a concrete use case (auditing sessions before workflow export), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_session_history' which likely return different data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for auditing a session before exporting a workflow, especially if there are injection attempts. This tells the agent the context of use. However, it does not indicate when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it is not a full 5.

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