Action log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's added value is describing what the log contains (key presses, typed text, window switches, control activations) and that entries carry time and window context, but it says nothing about retention, ordering guarantees, or whether the log is truncated.

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?

It is a single well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing colon-list of event types is slightly dense but each item carries real information about what the log records.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it still usefully characterizes the entry content and recency ordering. For a one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from other log/history tools.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no information about the limit parameter, such as defaults or maximums, beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and a clearly scoped resource ('newest entries of the log of actions MCP clients took through NVDA'), and enumerates the event types recorded (keys pressed, text typed, windows switched, controls activated). That distinguishes it in substance from nvda_get_log and nvda_get_speech_history, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as nvda_get_log, nvda_trace_events, or nvda_get_output_history, all of which could plausibly be confused with this tool. The only hint is the word 'newest', which implies a recency-review use case but leaves the agent to infer it.

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