get_script_audit_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral constraint by stating that source code is represented only by SHA-256, preventing an agent from expecting source content. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination, side effects, or the meaning of 'bounded' beyond a vague sense of limitation.

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 consists of two focused sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds important behavioral context without redundancy. Every part 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?

Although an output schema is present, the description is incomplete for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the filtering semantics of command_id, the role of idempotency_key, or how count controls the result, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters: count, command_id, and idempotency_key. The mention of 'bounded' hints at count's effect but does not explain defaults, filters, or how idempotency_key is used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 returns script audit metadata, using a specific verb ('Return') and a defined resource ('script audit metadata'). It also adds a meaningful differentiator by noting that source code is represented only by SHA-256, which distinguishes it from tools that might expose actual script content. However, 'bounded' is somewhat vague and does not fully clarify the scope of the result set.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_script_policy or get_isaac_logs. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria. An agent must infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name.

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