List CommandBridge Audit Events

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

Annotations already cover read-only and safe behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the redaction policy: commands are redacted, and output, bearer tokens, and environment values are never included. This is critical behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 the main purpose front-loaded, followed by a necessary caveat about redaction. No wasted words.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned and what is intentionally excluded, giving the agent enough context to invoke correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (with default and range). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource ('recent CommandBridge command audit events'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_system_info and run_command. The scope is unambiguous.

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 purpose implies when to use it (for auditing past commands), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. The redaction note subtly hints at expectations, but no direct usage guidance is provided.

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