Operator: Audit Trail

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states 'Read-only — no side effects,' requires CIVITAE_ADMIN_KEY, and is prefixed with 'Operator-only.' This meaningfully discloses access control and safety beyond the title.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key purpose ('Operator-only: read-only query'), then groups auth, return content, safety, filtering, and sibling routing in short sentences. No filler; each sentence 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 only two optional parameters, an output schema present, and this description, an agent has everything needed to select and call the tool correctly: purpose, auth requirement, read-only nature, filter options, and explicit alternatives. No critical context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'since' and 'event_type' already described with examples and defaults, so the description need not re-explain them. It only adds a general statement that filtering by event type and time is possible, which matches the schema without adding new semantic detail.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'read-only query of the governance audit log,' and specifies the content (governance events like votes, motions, mode changes, role assignments). It also explicitly names sibling alternatives for adjacent tasks, so the agent can distinguish it from op_reviews, op_stakes, op_stats, and meetings.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for audit trail queries with optional filters, and lists explicit alternatives for other tasks ('Use civitae_op_reviews for post review management...', 'Use civitae_meetings for public governance meeting data'). It also notes the admin-key requirement and the no-side-effect nature, making selection and invocation unambiguous.

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