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. It states the tool reads the JSONL file and returns the newest entries first, implying non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or file size limits, so transparency is moderate.

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 structured with a header, behavior sentence, args, and returns. It is reasonably concise at 6 lines but includes redundant phrases like 'Liest die JSONL-Audit-Datei' which is implied by the purpose. Slightly more compact wording would improve this.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values (including structure). It adds use-case context and ordering. Missing details like pagination or error conditions are minor, making it largely complete for a read-only log retrieval 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 description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters ('agent_id' as unique agent ID, 'limit' as max entries with default 50) beyond the schema's minimal info. Since schema coverage was 0%, the description compensates well, though it could also specify the data type more precisely.

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 clearly states it retrieves audit log entries for a specific agent, reads the JSONL audit file, and returns the latest entries. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'log_action' or 'check_compliance' by focusing on reading historical logs for compliance and incident analysis.

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 explicitly mentions use cases ('Compliance-Reviews und Incident-Analyse'), providing context for when to use the tool. It does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear to guide selection.

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