retrieve_role_audits_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as pagination behavior, response shape, or any rate-limit or authorization considerations.

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 short but repetitive: the first sentence already says 'List history about your roles (audit),' and the second sentence restates it as 'List and filter the history about your roles.' The endpoint path is useful but the rest does not earn its place.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain pagination defaults, ordering behavior, or what an audit entry contains, leaving the agent to infer important operational details from the schema alone.

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%, so all nine parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only mentions filtering generically and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: list/filter the audit history for roles. This distinguishes it from sibling role CRUD tools such as retrieve_role and update_role, although it does not explicitly name any alternative audit tools.

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 says the tool lists and filters role audit history, but gives no guidance on when to use it versus other audit-list siblings or versus retrieve_role. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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