chap.audit.read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Read' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the optional range/filter scope is useful. However, it does not disclose ordering, return shape, pagination, permission requirements, or failure conditions, so the disclosure is only partial.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core verb and object come first, and the optional modifiers are compressed into one clear clause.

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?

For a basic call, the description plus rich schema is sufficient: workspace is required, range and filter are optional, and their semantics are documented. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not cover return ordering, pagination, or error conditions, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra description. The description adds convenient labels like 'sender' for filter.from and 'task' for task_id, but it mostly restates what the schema already documents without adding new semantic depth.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('entries from a workspace's audit log'), and it names the optional range and filter dimensions. This makes it clearly distinguishable from audit siblings like submit_to_scitt, verify_receipt, and verify_chain.

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 usage is implied: this is the tool for reading an audit log. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related audit tools, nor does it mention any exclusions such as 'use verify_chain for chain verification.' The sibling list provides context, but the description itself gives no routing guidance.

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