audit_audit_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only mentions the return format. It does not explain what happens when bucket is null, the format of after/before, or any constraints like inclusive/exclusive boundaries. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 very concise: one sentence plus return shape. It is front-loaded with purpose and efficient. However, it could be expanded slightly to cover parameter meanings without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of parameter types, defaults, and the time range interpretation. The output shape is provided, but the input behavior 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, and the description only hints that 'bucket' refers to hour or day. It does not explain the allowed values for bucket, the meaning of after/before (timestamps? seconds?), or that they are optional. The description adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 that the tool buckets audit events by hour or day for trend analysis, distinguishing it from other audit tools that list, search, or provide stats. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling like audit_audit_stats, but the purpose is still clear.

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 implies use for trend analysis over time but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The phrase 'volume of events over time' is implied but not stated directly.

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