vcf_audit

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

The description discloses that the tool logs every POST/PATCH/PUT/DELETE and includes target, path, status, and redacted body, going beyond the annotation hints. It also notes that logs include changes from previous sessions, adding useful behavioral context.

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 primary purpose, followed by a concise explanation of the log contents and typical use case. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and one self-explanatory parameter, the description covers purpose, output contents, and intended usage. It lists the log fields, so no separate output schema is needed.

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 schema includes a single 'limit' parameter (default 50) but the description does not explain its meaning or effect. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated but does not, leaving parameter semantics implicit.

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's function: 'Show recent mutating calls made through this server.' It identifies the action (show) and resource (recent mutation logs), and it is distinct from sibling tools by focusing on audit history rather than current state.

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 provides an explicit use case ('Use it to answer "what did I change?"') and notes it covers changes from earlier sessions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like vcf_inventory, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for audit queries.

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