get_access_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions viewing access history but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what permissions are required, whether only successful accesses are logged, or how results are ordered/paginated. This leaves significant ambiguity beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function without unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action ('View the history') and then adds clarifying details.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description only gives a high-level summary of log entry content. It does not mention details like default limit (though in schema), pagination, ordering, or whether the log includes failed attempts. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in what a complete response might look like.

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 fully describes both parameters (limit and document_id) with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about how these parameters affect results. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool's purpose: to view the history of document field accesses. It specifies what the log contains (what was shared, with which client, and when), and this differentiates it from sibling tools like get_document or list_documents, which focus on retrieving documents themselves.

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 implies usage for auditing or reviewing access history, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. While no sibling tool serves the same function, there is no explicit guidance on scenarios or prerequisites, so the usage context is only implied.

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