Lire le journal d'audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that purged content is not re-exposed, which is a meaningful safety guarantee. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, response format, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the return type, scope, and a key exclusion without wasted words. Every phrase 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 simple read-only audit tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what is returned and a notable caveat, but lacks usage context, result ordering, limit behavior, and response details, so it is not fully complete.

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 only 50%: the 'id' parameter is documented, but 'limit' lacks a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how 'id' or 'limit' filter the audit log entries. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retourne' and defines the resource precisely: mutations, revues, dry-runs et purges avec leur raison. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating that purged content is not re-exposed, positioning it clearly as the read-only audit counterpart to action-oriented tools like memory_purge.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, and the use case is only implied by the tool name 'memory_audit'. There is no explicit context like 'use this to review why actions were taken'.

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