discord_get_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations: the permission requirement, the return format (JSON array with specific fields), and the type of content (administrative actions). This is a meaningful addition, though it doesn't address rate limits or pagination behavior. The description does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then adds permission requirements, return format, and a read-only note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. This is an exemplary balance of brevity and completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, no nested objects, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, permission, and return format, compensating for the lack of an output schema by listing the fields. The agent has sufficient information to select and use this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'limit' in passing and implies date-range filtering, but that is already covered by the schema. A 3 is appropriate as the description meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Fetch the server's audit log' and lists the types of actions included (bans, kicks, role/channel changes). The tool name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools, which are overwhelmingly mutation actions (e.g., ban, kick, create, edit, send). The specificity of purpose and clear differentiation merit a 5.

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 explicitly states the required permission (View Audit Log) and the read-only nature, guiding the agent on when to use it. While no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are listed, the sibling context makes it clear this is for reading audit logs, not for administrative actions. The permission requirement is a strong usage guideline.

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