list_audit_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the log is immutable and HMAC-chained, and details the recorded fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention side effects. Still, the behavioral traits are clearly conveyed.

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 informative and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section adds necessary detail. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but still well-structured.

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?

No output schema, but the description specifies the log fields (actor, org, cluster, etc.) and mentions integrity verification via verify_audit_chain. It covers the key aspects for a list tool. Missing explicit return format details, but sufficient for an agent to understand the output.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section: from_dt, to_dt, action, limit, including formats and defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 it queries the immutable VibOps audit log, listing all operations with full context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_audit_chain by focusing on querying rather than verification.

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 by describing the log's contents and filtering options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of sibling tools helps, but more direct guidance would improve it.

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