brc_list_audit_log

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only data changes are logged, read-only calls excluded, and scope is limited to current session. It does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation or mention rate limits, but the behavior is well-described.

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 verbose and contains redundancy (multiple sentences about ignoring older entries). While front-loaded with the core purpose, it could be more concise and structured without losing important details.

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 single boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, and usage well. It misses describing the output fields, but for an audit log list tool, the behavioral context is sufficiently complete.

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 only parameter (includeTechnicalDetails) has a schema description, but the description adds usage guidance: 'Only set this to true if the user asks for technical details. Sensitive values are still redacted.' This adds value beyond the schema.

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 shows a record of data changes (create, update, delete, etc.) made through this Red MCP server session, distinguishing it from other list tools by focusing on audit log scope. It avoids tautology by adding nuance about read-only calls not logged.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: for 'what did I do today in Red?' style questions. Provides clear exclusions: ignore other sessions, other users, disconnected companies, and unrelated chat history. Offers specific guidance on scope restrictions.

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