handshake_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states what the log contains and that it is recent. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how the session filter behaves, whether results are paginated or ordered, or any authentication expectations.

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 compact single line that front-loads the purpose and contains no redundant words. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and usage details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse for safe invocation. It doesn't explain the required 'session' parameter, the meaning of 'limit', or what the returned log looks like.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters. Neither 'session' nor 'limit' is explained, leaving the agent without a way to know what values are valid or what each parameter controls.

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 identifies the tool as an access log for credential reads and specifies the content dimensions (who, which credential, when, from where). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like handshake_list and handshake_get, though it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use handshake_log instead of siblings like handshake_status, handshake_list, handshake_get, or handshake_put. No contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, so the agent must guess the appropriate scenario.

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