get_agent_audit_log

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds ordering semantics ('newest first') and the pagination contract for cursorTs, which go beyond annotations. It stops short of describing entry fields or rate/volume limits, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and ordering front-loaded, then usage, then pagination mechanics. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the essential return shape (who/what/when, newest first) and how to page through results. Minor gap: entry granularity and what fields identify the actor are not spelled out, though adequate for 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 coverage is 75%, so mode and limit are documented in the schema. The description adds operational meaning to cursorTs ('passing the ts of the last entry'), turning a bare timestamp filter into a concrete pagination workflow. agentId's meaning is implied by the tool purpose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read the change history of an agent: who changed what and when (newest first).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_usage, get_agent, or list_agents, none of which are audit logs.

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?

Provides two concrete use cases: 'explain an unexpected behaviour change' and 'find when a setting was edited.' That is clear context for invocation, but it doesn't name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use this vs. get_agent_usage or agent_backups_read).

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