scf_get_audit_log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safe read behavior, and the description adds useful context about what the audit trail contains. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, time range limitations, pagination defaults, or whether results are limited to a certain period, but the annotation lessens the burden.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then gives the key content detail. Every part is informative, with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 simple read-only paginated list endpoint, the description covers the returned content well: field-level changes, actor, timestamp, and before/after values. It could mention ordering or the exact set of 'related entities', but the schema and annotation provide enough for basic correct invocation.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description including defaults and bounds. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed since the schema fully documents org_id, limit, and offset.

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: 'Get one organization's audit trail', and adds concrete detail about the content (field-level changes to controls, evidence, and related entities with actor/timestamp/before-after values). It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like scf_get_document_history or scf_get_catalog_changelog.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when retrieving an organization's audit trail. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how to distinguish it from related history/changelog tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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