get_audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('including old and new values'), but does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the log_id does not exist), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, the information is partially transparent but lacks failure-mode disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is simple with only one parameter and an output schema, so the description needn't elaborate on return structure. It covers what the tool does, the parameter meaning, and the key return contents. However, it omits any mention of error scenarios or prerequisites, which would make it fully complete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Although the schema property 'log_id' has no description, the tool description explicitly documents 'log_id: The ID of the audit log entry to retrieve.' This adds complete meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type and required flag, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action: 'Get detailed information about a specific audit log entry.' It uses a specific verb with a resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_audit_logs (which lists entries) and get_task (which retrieves a different resource type).

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 implies usage when you need details for a single audit log entry by its ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the wording 'specific audit log entry' clearly contrasts with listing, making the intended use clear. No exclusions are given, so it earns a 4.

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