get_workspace_audit_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the name – no mention of pagination, event formats, or that it returns audit entries. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the description contributes almost no behavioral context.

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?

It is extremely short and front-loaded, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It fails to earn its place because it provides no information beyond the tool name.

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 7-parameter read tool with pagination and filtering, the description is completely inadequate. It omits any mention of pagination, filtering, return format, or the existence of cursor-based traversal – all critical for correct invocation. No output schema exists, so the description should carry this burden and fails to do so.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (limit, cursor, actor_uid, class_name, activity_name, time_from_unix_ms, time_to_unix_ms) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get Workspace Audit Logs' restates the tool name with no added specificity. It states a verb (Get) and resource (Workspace Audit Logs), so it's not fully tautological, but it gives no scope, filtering, or format detail to distinguish it from siblings like get_workspace_members or get_workspace_batch_calls.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, no conditions, no exclusions, and no references to alternatives. An agent has no basis for choosing this over other get_workspace_* tools.

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