list_audit_events

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context with 'bounded' and 'filterable,' but it does not specify how events are bounded, what the default time window is, or what event types can be filtered. It adds some value beyond annotations but remains vague.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key ideas—bounded, filterable, runtime decisions—are all present without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that all parameters are optional and an output schema exists, a short description is acceptable. However, with zero schema descriptions, the tool description could have named the available filters or mentioned the default limit to support correct invocation. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters: limit, since, event_type, and subject_id. The word 'filterable' hints at filtering, but it does not map to the actual parameter names or expected formats, leaving the agent to infer semantics entirely from parameter names.

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 ('Query') and resource ('bounded, filterable audit trail of runtime decisions'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also naturally distinguishes this tool from the sibling planning/execution tools, none of which are audit-related.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to inspect runtime decision audit records, and no sibling tool competes for that role. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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