system_query_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two meaningful traits — that the operation is read-only ('读') and restricted to internal use ('仅限内部'). However, it does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or whether any side effects occur, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. The key information — what it queries, that it is read-only, and that it is internal — is front-loaded. For a simple one-parameter tool this is an efficient length, though it errs slightly toward under-specification rather than over-length.

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 read-only query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits return-format details and any mention of the limit parameter's behavior. An agent calling this would understand the intent but not fully what to expect back or how to shape the call.

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 compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. The single 'limit' parameter is inferred from its name and schema constraints (default 50, max 200), but the description adds zero meaning about how limit affects the result set. This is a clear gap given zero schema coverage.

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 ('查询' = query), a resource (this MCP's operation audit log), and a scope ('本 MCP' = this MCP). It is clearly differentiated from the siblings, which are all adtech/lpb campaign and page management tools in unrelated domains. It lacks the 'distinguishes from siblings' explicitness of a top-tier definition but is unambiguous about what it does.

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 implies usage context by noting it is a read operation ('读') and restricted to internal use ('仅限内部'), which tells an agent this is an audit/introspection tool rather than a business action. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though the sibling set makes it obvious this is the system-level tool.

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