audit_audit_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List distinct event types' without disclosing read-only nature, side effects, or auth requirements. A read-only hint would add value.

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?

One sentence plus return format. Extremely concise and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with no inputs and a known output schema, the description covers the return format and purpose. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., readonly) and usage guidance, so not perfect.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description adds nothing but is clear. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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?

Description clearly states 'List distinct event types', specifying a verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like audit_audit_log (which lists events) and audit_audit_stats (statistics). Return format is also mentioned.

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 [audit] prefix and description imply usage for overview, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided. Among many audit siblings, no guidance is given.

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