audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns every promote/pin/corroborate/review action with reason and timestamp, which reveals scope. However, it does not mention the limit parameter's effect, pagination, ordering, or that this is a read-only operation.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and information-dense. The second sentence is largely rhetorical and repeats the 'reason' concept, so it does not fully earn its place. Still, the overall length is appropriate and scannable.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main return contents and distinguishes it as the audit log. Missing pieces include limit behavior, usage context, and explicit read-only assurance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the parameter gap remains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter semantics. It never mentions 'limit' or how limiting interacts with the claim of returning the 'full' audit trail. This is a meaningful omission for the only parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and clearly names the resource ('full audit trail'), then enumerates the action types included (promote, pin, corroborate, review). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'current_narrative' or 'provenance' by positioning it as the complete history of accountable actions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'provenance' or 'current_narrative'. The description implies it is for retrieving audit history, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent here instead of a sibling.

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