ops_audit_log_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It hints at scope ('recent', 'local') but fails to specify time ranges, return format, pagination behavior, or whether this requires specific admin privileges.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, the description is undersized rather than appropriately concise.

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 tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical details about filter parameters, return structure, and behavioral constraints necessary for correct invocation.

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% (no parameter descriptions), and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain what 'event' or 'method' filter for, valid formats, or how 'limit' interacts with the 'recent' scope.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('local audit log entries'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ops_incident_create or ops_access_approve. However, it lacks explicit contrast with similar diagnostic tools like ops_recent_failures.

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?

While it mentions 'governance and troubleshooting' as use cases, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ops_recent_failures or ops_state_overview, nor does it mention prerequisites like required permissions.

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