portal_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, describes what each view returns, and clarifies that sessions are implicit plumbing. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured with sections for views and a note on resource split. It front-loads the core purpose. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. Slight trimming possible but not necessary.

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?

Given 3 parameters (none required), high complexity (multiple views, read-only), and an output schema, the description is thorough. It explains all six views, their outputs, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools. It also notes the absence of hosts/tunnels in snapshot, leaving no major gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each view enum value and provides examples for the history view with limit and host_filter. However, it does not explicitly state that limit and host_filter only apply to the history view, leaving minor ambiguity. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 inspects MCP server internal state and audit log, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools portal_host and portal_tunnel by what it excludes. It uses specific verbs like 'Inspect', 'introspect', and 'list' for views, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each view (e.g., 'Use this for an all-at-once diagnostic', 'cheap; use this when you only need...'). It also tells when NOT to use this tool, directing agents to sibling tools for hosts and tunnels. The read-only nature is stated upfront, aiding correct selection.

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