retrieve_secret_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP path, which tells an agent this maps to a plain GET. Nothing is said about pagination defaults, ordering behavior, retention of audit records, or what fields a change record carries.

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 two sentences are largely duplicative — the second restates the first with a grammatical slip ('List and filters'). The endpoint tag is front-loaded and useful, but the body wastes its one sentence on repetition rather than on filtering or scope detail.

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?

This is a 9-parameter, fully optional-filter list tool with no output schema, so the description should say what an audit record contains and how paging behaves. Instead it says nothing about return values, total counts, or default page size. For a tool this parameter-rich and with no output schema, the description is under-specified.

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% across all 9 parameters (page, size, startDate/endDate, orderBy, secretId, changedBy, requestId, x-trace-id), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond a vague mention of filtering — no clarification of date-range semantics or the orderBy format. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list audit history for secrets) and pins the underlying endpoint GET /v1/secrets/audits. The word 'secrets' distinguishes it from the many other audits-list siblings (tag, VIP, DNS, firewall audits). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus retrieve_secret_list or the other *audits_list tools, and no prerequisites, retention window, or exclusions. 'List and filters the history' only hints that filter params exist, which the schema already shows. This is the level of a tool that expects the agent to infer usage from the name.

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