discord_get_audit_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but fails to mention permission requirements, rate limits, default behavior, or what the returned data contains. No additional behavioral context is given.

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 single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. While it is under-specified, the conciseness itself is appropriate; the issue is lack of content, not verbosity.

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's complexity (five optional parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, output format, pagination, or usage context, leaving an agent unable to make informed decisions.

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 does not elaborate on any of the five parameters. It merely says 'optional filters' without naming or explaining 'action', 'target_id', 'executor_id', etc. This is a critical gap since the schema provides no descriptions either.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('guild audit log entries'), and scope ('with optional filters'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which reference audit logs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context on typical use cases or conditions that would make it preferable to other retrieval tools.

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