arm_audit_get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns CEF-formatted log entries and that filters are optional, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication. This adds some behavioral context beyond the schema, but is not exhaustive.

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 concise, using three short segments: HTTP method/path, a clear action verb, and the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple retrieval nature, 3 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context including return format. It could mention relationships with sibling tools, but the essential details are present.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, valid values, and defaults. The description's 'optional filters' references the eventType parameter, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves SIEM audit logs from AutoRABIT, specifying the HTTP endpoint and return format (CEF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arm_audit_download_logs (which likely downloads files) and arm_audit_list_event_types.

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 indicates usage for retrieving audit logs with optional filters, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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