audit_recent

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 fails to indicate whether this tool is read-only, whether it has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output structure looks like. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description adds 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?

The description is extremely short at three words, which on its own is not concise but rather under-specified. It front-loads nothing useful and earns its place very poorly. A score of 3 reflects that brevity is maintained but without substance.

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 has a single parameter, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what audit events are, how they are ordered (e.g., chronological), the effect of limit, or how this differs from other event-based tools. The output schema exists but is not leveraged by the description.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptive text for the 'limit' parameter. The description does not mention or explain the limit parameter at all, so it adds zero value beyond what the schema structure already shows. The agent must guess that limit controls the number of events returned.

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 'Recent audit events.' is extremely terse and lacks a specific verb or resource context. It doesn't clarify what kind of events are returned (e.g., system, user, security), making it vague and difficult for an agent to distinguish from sibling tools like 'attestation_recent' which also sounds event-related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'attestation_recent' or any other tool. No context about prerequisites, filters, or scope is provided, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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