island_list_audit_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: results are newest-first and the time window defaults server-side when both bounds are omitted. 'List' also implies a read-style operation. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for a read-only timeline query.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: purpose and examples come first, followed by parameter guidance. Every clause 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?

For a four-optional-parameter list tool with richly described schema fields and no output schema, the description covers the key decision factors: event type, ordering, and time-window behavior. It could add explicit pagination context, but the schema already carries the limit/offset details.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by coupling start and end into a single window concept and clarifying the 'omit both' default, which is not fully explicit in the individual schema entries.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'List browser/session audit events from Island's timeline,' and adds concrete examples of event types plus the 'newest first' ordering. The event category sets it apart from sibling tools (admin actions, compromised credentials, devices) without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for the time-window parameters: 'Use start/end to bound the window; omit both for Island's server-side default window.' It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the domain-specific wording provides clear context with no exclusions.

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