Read audit log

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real context: a single bounded SQLite read, WAL-safety, an explicit speed characterization, and batch-safety. It does not state a default limit or what happens when truncated, which keeps it short of 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?

Labeled segments (Use when / Avoid when / Speed / Output / Batch-safe) make it scannable, and the core operation is stated in the first sentence. Every line carries information an agent needs to select and invoke it.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return envelope (audit_read: rows[] newest first, count, truncated, db_path). The remaining gap is default/edge behavior for limit and since_unix, which an agent would have to guess.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It names the filter dimensions (session/operation/outcome) and the limit bound, mapping to four of the five parameters, but says nothing about since_unix semantics, the 200 maximum, or default limit behavior.

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 and resource ('Read recent rows from the SQLite audit log') plus scope (WAL, bounded by limit). It is clearly distinguishable from the nearest sibling, project_health, which is called out by name.

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?

Explicitly gives a 'Use when' condition (audit trail inspection for compliance or debugging a prior action) and a 'Avoid when' condition that routes the agent to project_health include_audit=true as the faster alternative. No inference required.

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