get_audit_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is 'Read-only,' which is a key safety trait for an agent. It also clarifies the scope of the data ('governance allow/deny records from AgentFence') and the expected context ('after a blocked run_task'), providing meaningful behavior beyond the tool name. It does not detail retention, auth, or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this is adequate and valuable.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and resource, the second adds usage context, read-only status, and an exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 that the tool has no parameters and the output shape is covered by the output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, when to use it, its read-only nature, and what it is not. The explicit use-after-blocked-run_task context ties it to the surrounding workflow, making the definition complete for a simple read-only tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The input schema confirms no parameters, making the description complete in this regard.

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 and resource: 'Return governance allow/deny records from AgentFence.' It also explicitly names the sibling tool it is not ('Not the dollar ledger (get_cost_ledger)'), which differentiates it from a related tool. This is far beyond a tautology and clearly identifies the tool's function.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use after a blocked run_task' gives a concrete trigger condition. It also names an alternative/adjacent tool ('get_cost_ledger') and explicitly excludes it, telling the agent what not to use this tool for. This is direct and actionable.

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