audit_recent

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar for description contribution. The description adds useful context by stating the records are 'redacted' and 'recent', which informs the agent about output content and time scope beyond the structured annotations.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant information, and the description is appropriately compact for a simple read tool.

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 description is adequate for a straightforward read operation with readOnly annotations, but it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. For a one-parameter tool where the parameter is optional and schema-described, this is a minimum viable definition with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameter meaning. It does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the schema's integer range alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('recent redacted machine-operation audit records'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling audit_search, but the 'recent' and 'redacted' qualifiers provide meaningful 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_search. There is no mention of what 'recent' means, how far back it reaches, or when a search-style tool would be more appropriate.

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