coolify_list_audit_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the sort order (newest first), the admin/owner token requirement, and that sensitive fields (actor email, token, metadata, changes, IP) need read:sensitive. It doesn't cover pagination or response shape, but the authorization profile is well conveyed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then constraints. Every clause (version, sort order, auth, sensitive scope) earns its place.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key auth and version context an agent needs. Missing only minor details like pagination behavior and return shape, which are modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including enums are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filter semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List the team audit log') plus sort order and version context. There is no competing audit-log sibling, so an agent can immediately recognize what this does.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires a team admin/owner token') that gates correct invocation. It doesn't describe when to reach for it versus other tools, but no sibling competes for this function, so guidance is largely adequate.

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