scf_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 type of data returned (field-level changes, actor, timestamp, before/after values) but does not mention safety (read-only), permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key details. It lacks any redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing what is included).

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a high-level summary of the output content but does not specify pagination behavior, order, or structure. The existence of limit and offset parameters implies paginated results, but this is not mentioned. Reasonable but incomplete.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (org_id, limit, offset) with high coverage (100%). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only describes the return format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'audit trail', and specifies it is for 'one organization' with details about what it contains: field-level changes, actor, timestamp, and before/after values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list entities or update them.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use scf_list_controls vs this audit log tool. No explicit context for usage or exclusions is given, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

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