get_audit_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or read-only nature (though implied by GET). Only basic fetch action is described.

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 with a clear one-line summary followed by a structured 'Args' block. Each parameter is listed with brief but sufficient detail. No unnecessary information.

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?

The description covers all parameters and their usage fully. An output schema exists (not shown) so return values are not required. Minor omission: no mention of typical response structure, but output schema likely covers it. Adequate for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed semantics for all 7 parameters, including format examples (e.g., ISO8601 for time), defaults, and valid values (e.g., page_size 1-500). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 team audit log events' which specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (audit log events). The HTTP path is also included, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_usage_events.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with other tools.

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