auth_log_summary

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it states read-only, identifies the log sources (auth.log/secure tail, journald ssh units as fallback), lists the exact return JSON structure, and enumerates possible errors (auth_log_not_available, auth_log_permission_denied). This goes far beyond a minimal 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 three sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, read-only/source fallback, return format and errors. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids repetition or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has moderate complexity (multi-section JSON output, error handling, fallback sources) and no output schema. The description compensates fully by specifying the exact JSON structure and error names. Combined with schema descriptions, it gives an agent all necessary information to invoke and interpret results.

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 the parameters (instance_id, top_n, since_minutes) are already well-documented. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; it focuses on output and behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter explanation.

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 'Summarize SSH auth activity on one instance' with specific categories (failed logins, invalid-user probes, accepted logins) and grouping by source IP. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling log/audit tools like get_logs or security_audit.

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 clear context: it is a read-only summarizer for SSH auth activity on a single instance, with fallback sources mentioned. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose is specific enough to imply when it should be used over raw log retrieval tools.

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