read_audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the basic action without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, permissions required, or any rate limits. The default value for 'lines' is not mentioned in the description.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is not verbose, but it could include more useful details without being overly long. The conciseness is good, but it sacrifices completeness.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks clarity on the 'destructive operations' qualifier and does not explain if it filters events or focuses on a specific log. No output format is described, but that's acceptable without an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, like clarifying the meaning of 'event_type' values or how the 'lines' parameter works.

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 (read) and resource (audit log), and specifies it's for destructive operations, which gives some differentiation from generic audit log tools like list_events. However, it's slightly ambiguous whether 'destructive operations' is a filter or the scope of the log.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as list_events or get_environment_events. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for use.

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