secrets_audit

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required permission (secrets.read) and the output dimensions (who accessed, what, when, purpose), but does not mention ordering, pagination, or limits. This is moderate transparency for a read-only log view.

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 sentence that concisely states the purpose, output fields, and permission requirement. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear with no wasted content.

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?

The tool has low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the access log content and the required permission, which covers the essential context. It does not specify ordering or date-range behavior, but these are not critical for a basic access-log viewing 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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'name' with its type, optionality, and filter purpose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'View' with the resource 'access log for secrets' and explicitly outlines the data fields (who, what, when, purpose). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_history or secrets_anomalies by focusing on audit log access.

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 implies the tool is for auditing secret access but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. Sibling tools such as secrets_history and secrets_anomalies are not mentioned, so the usage context is only implied, not explicitly differentiated.

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