audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the output format (one line per event, formatted with timestamp/action/key/scope/env/detail), and the behavior when no events match ('No audit events found'). It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements, but for a query tool this is sufficient.

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 about five sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidelines, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and well-structured, with 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?

Given no annotations, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, output format, and edge case. It could clarify the order of events (chronological vs. newest-first limit) but is otherwise complete. The output format is explicitly described, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves; it mostly repeats what the schema already says (e.g., 'limit to events touching this exact key', 'Maximum events to return, newest first'). The description adds overall output context but not parameter-specific semantics.

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 clearly states the tool queries the audit log, a tamper-evident record of secret accesses. It specifies the verb ('Query') and resource ('q-ring audit log'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming `detect_anomalies` and `health_check` as alternatives.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('investigate who accessed KEY recently?', feed an agent an access timeline) and when-not-to-use alternatives ('prefer detect_anomalies for automated unusual-pattern detection and health_check for decay-state-plus-anomalies'). It also declares the tool is read-only.

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