modsecurity_audit_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It never states that the tool performs a read operation, what side effects it might have, or what happens when entry_id is omitted. 'One ModSecurity audit entry' reads as an object definition rather than a description of tool behavior.

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 very short, but brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. 'One ModSecurity audit entry' plus an Args stub leaves out the operational meaning of the tool. While there is no fluff, the few words present do not earn their place because they add little beyond the tool name.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to decide among many audit-related siblings. It omits the tool's action, the relationship of entry_id to the audit log, and the distinction from audit_search and modsecurity_audit_summary. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the core usage context is still absent.

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 must compensate for the schema's silence, but it barely does. 'entry_id: Optional entry identifier (query)' adds only the vague qualifier 'query' and repeats what the schema already implies via the title 'Entry Id' and the default value. It does not explain entry_id format, where it comes from, or what omission of the parameter means.

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 is 'One ModSecurity audit entry,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and names the resource without stating an action. There is no verb such as 'gets,' 'retrieves,' or 'returns,' so an agent cannot tell whether this tool fetches, lists, or creates an entry. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling audit tools like audit_search or modsecurity_audit_summary.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_search, audit_recent, or modsecurity_audit_summary. It does not mention prerequisites, how to obtain an entry_id, or what makes this tool the right choice. The only context is the optional entry_id parameter, but its intended use is not explained.

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