zen_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It notes that params have 'JS code stripped,' which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, and it omits details about the scope of the audit (e.g., session vs. persistent).

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description lists the return fields but does not explain the meaning or usage of 'limit' and 'since_ms,' which are critical for effective use. Without these, the agent cannot properly invoke the tool with desired filtering.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not mention the 'limit' or 'since_ms' parameters at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Return recent command audit entries' with specific fields (action, params stripped, success, error, duration). It distinguishes well from sibling action tools like zen_click or zen_logs, as audit is a retrospective introspection tool.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for "what did the agent do?" reviews.' This indicates when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like zen_logs. The guidance is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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