Query audit history for knowledge base data changes (D1-D5) using scope filters for recent, entity, concept, or all. Specify count for recent audits to trace governance actions.
对知识库结构化数据变更跑数据审计（D1-D5）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | entity/concept 名称（scope 为 entity/concept 时必填） | |
| count | No | 最近 N 次变更（scope 为 recent 时），默认 10 | |
| scope | No | 审计范围 | recent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'run data audit', revealing nothing about side effects, read-only semantics, return format, permissions, or whether D1-D5 levels have different behaviors.
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 succinct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and gets to the point immediately, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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 three parameters, an enum scope, no output schema, and several similar siblings, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It omits what D1-D5 denotes, return value expectations, and how scopes affect the audit.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify scope semantics or the meaning of D1-D5.
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-resource pair: runs a data audit on knowledge base structured data changes, and references D1-D5, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_file, audit_trail, and run_audit by naming the target resource.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this over the many sibling audit tools (audit_file, run_audit, audit_trail). The description neither states conditions for use nor exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.