get_audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It only states 'Get audit log entries' and lists content types, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, default limits, or that it is read-only. The parenthetical adds context about content but not behavior, leaving the agent with limited understanding of side effects or response characteristics.

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?

A single, succinct sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then adds a clarifying parenthetical. No fluff, no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient for a simple read tool.

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 straightforward read operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains what the entries contain, but does not specify the return structure (e.g., list of objects) or any ordering/pagination details. The lack of annotations increases the need for such context, so it falls short of excellent.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, username, event_type). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'audit log entries' and clarifies the content with examples (token requests, logins, SAML flows). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_audit_stats (statistics) and clear_audit_log (deletion) by focusing on entries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention get_audit_stats for aggregated statistics or clear_audit_log for deletion, nor any exclusions or preferred contexts. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings.

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