audits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'query audits' and provides an example, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any other operational traits. This is a significant gap for a query tool.

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 short and includes an example that is useful for understanding the input structure. It is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. The variable list could be considered slightly redundant with the schema, but the example earns its place.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what audits contain, what filtering options exist beyond the example, or what the response looks like. Similar mutation tools with comparable gaps scored 2, and this is on par.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are generic (e.g., 'GraphQL: String'). The description's example variables add a bit of context about the expected structure (e.g., filter with objectId, order with direction and orderBy), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not systematically explain each parameter, so it stays at 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 states the tool queries audits related to user activity, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings; it relies on the resource name 'audits' which is not shared by other listed tools, so clarity is good but not perfect.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives. The example variables provide some usage hints but no decision-making context.

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