auth_log_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, names the data sources (auth.log/secure tail with journald ssh units as fallback), and lists two specific error codes. It stops short of stating permission requirements or volume/rate limits, but the behavioral profile is substantially disclosed.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and scope first, then data source and read-only status, then return shape and errors. No filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description inlines the full JSON return shape for all three sections and enumerates the error codes, so an agent knows both inputs (via schema) and outputs. Nothing material is missing for a 3-parameter summary 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% and the schema already documents top_n, instance_id, and since_minutes with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. it never mentions top_n or since_minutes), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Summarize) and resource (SSH auth activity on one instance), and enumerates the exact content categories (failed logins, invalid-user probes, accepted logins). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like journal_errors, docker_log_summary, and 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 scope ('SSH auth activity on one instance') implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as journal_errors or security_audit, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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