cipp_list_audit_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, required permissions, or whether results are sorted or limited. The description is insufficient for the agent to understand runtime behavior.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure and essential detail. The brevity comes at the cost of completeness; a better balance would include at least one additional sentence on behavior or output.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not cover return format, pagination, or how to interpret log entries. For a tool that lists audit logs, the output is critical but unaddressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names already documented in the schema (days, type, tenantFilter). It does not clarify format, defaults, or usage tips.

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 lists audit log entries for a tenant, specifying the resource (audit logs) and scope (tenant). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like cipp_list_logs which may refer to other logs, and cipp_list_tenants which lists tenants, not logs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cipp_list_logs or other audit-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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