Audit log

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are newest first, permission requirements, and the kinds of audit fields returned, including file edits and command text.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the field list is useful. It is dense but remains readable; a little more scannability would make it exceptional.

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 3-parameter, read-only audit-list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential return-content and permission context. Pagination behavior is left to the schema's cursor/limit descriptions, which is acceptable.

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 three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of actor and ordering adds only marginal value over the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns WorldAPI change audit entries, newest first, with who/when/method/path/target/status/details. It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from neighbors such as get_events, get_server_log, or get_access.

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 gives an implied use case, auditing client changes through WorldAPI, and states the permission prerequisite (`tokens:manage`). However, it does not say when to choose this tool versus related log/access/event tools, nor does it list exclusions.

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