get_audit_summary

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

The description begins with 'Read-only' and states it returns events, which is useful since no annotations are provided. It does not disclose additional behaviors such as ordering, time range interpretation, or potential errors (e.g., what happens when N exceeds available events). It covers the core safety aspect but leaves other behavioral details to inference.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the use case is added in a natural second sentence. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 has an output schema, return values are already documented. The description covers the essential information: what it returns, the read-only nature, and a typical usage scenario. It omits details like event ordering or time window assumptions, but these are minor given the output schema and the straightforward parameter.

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 0%, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It says 'last N' which implies the 'n' parameter controls the count of events. This adds meaning beyond the bare integer schema, though it does not explicitly label the parameter or discuss constraints like bounds or default behavior.

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 explicitly states the tool's action ('returns the last N gateway audit events') and resource ('gateway audit events'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_gateway_health (health status) and safe_query (generic query) by focusing on audit data. The read-only label further clarifies its scope.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Lets the operator ask what happened in the last 10 minutes' – giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for arbitrary queries). The scenario is helpful but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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