Get TacticalRMM Audit Logs

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

The annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by calling it 'read-only.' The added note about TacticalRMM examples using a PATCH request body for filters provides useful behavioral context about the underlying API's quirk, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only relevant technical detail. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 7 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description adds the endpoint and a relevant API caveat. It doesn't describe the structure of the returned audit log entries, but given the response_format parameter covers output, the overall guidance is fairly complete for a query tool.

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 provides complete descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already covers pagination, filters, sorting, and output format.

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 tool queries TacticalRMM audit logs from a specific endpoint (/logs/audit/), using a precise verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which all target other data types, so no ambiguity remains.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for querying audit logs, giving immediate context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though the unique resource (audit logs) makes the usage scope obvious relative to the listed siblings.

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