audit_search

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

The description declares read-only behavior, which is good. However, without annotations, it should also disclose other traits like result format or pagination. It mentions 'limit' implicitly but does not explain full behavior. Score 3 indicates adequate but not rich disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the essential read-only declaration and resource. Every sentence earns its place. Perfectly concise.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose and filtering logic but lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., date format for 'since') and output structure. It is minimally complete but has gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds that filters compose with AND, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond their names and default values. The AND composition is the only added meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool is read-only and queries the audit.jsonl of every write. The verb 'Query' and resource 'audit.jsonl' are explicit. The description distinguishes it from sibling content-operation tools.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied for auditing writes, but no usage context or exclusions are provided. A 3 reflects the lack of explicit guidance.

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