auth_log_summary

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: it is read-only, tails auth.log/secure with journald fallback, and provides exact error codes. It also details the JSON output structure, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's safety and operation.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and efficiently conveys data sources, return format, and errors. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or missing information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly defines the JSON structure and error codes. It covers the instance scope, data sources, and parameter defaults. This is complete for an agent to understand how to invoke and interpret the tool.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema: it repeats the parameter roles but does not provide additional context or examples. 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?

The description clearly states the tool summarizes SSH auth activity (failed logins, invalid-user probes, accepted logins) grouped by source IP on one instance. It distinguishes from siblings like get_logs by being SSH-specific and providing a structured JSON summary.

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 clear context: use on one instance, read-only, and lists error conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like journal_errors or get_logs, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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