audit_log

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

The description declares the tool as read-only, explains it returns one line per event in chronological order with a format, and specifies the empty result message. While no annotations are provided, the description covers behavioral traits adequately. Minor gap: does not mention any potential side effects, but read-only tool so unlikely.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence adding value. It starts with the core purpose, moves to usage guidance, then details behavior and output format. No redundant or vague statements.

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's simplicity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and return format. It also provides context on when to use sibling tools, making it complete for an agent.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, but it reinforces the purpose of key and limit. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 clearly states it queries the audit log, a tamper-evident record of secret accesses. It specifies the scope (read/write/delete) and distinguishes from siblings like detect_anomalies and health_check, providing explicit differentiation.

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 explicitly describes when to use (investigate 'who accessed KEY recently?') and when not to use (prefer detect_anomalies for anomaly detection, health_check for combined checks). Provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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