list_audit_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior beyond them: the project-scope initialization prerequisite and the fact that history is append-only and unaffected by this call. The statement about the returned events array overlaps the output schema, so no extra credit there.

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 purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every sentence contributes something. The closing sentence about the events array is the weakest, since it restates what the output schema already provides.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage, and complete annotations, the description only needs to carry scope, prerequisite, and routing information, all of which are present. The one thing an agent might still wonder about is ordering, pagination, or volume limits on the returned events, which is not addressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with full schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema already carries its meaning. "For one memory scope" reinforces that the call targets a single scope rather than aggregating, but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("Read audit events") plus a scope qualifier ("one memory scope") and a purpose ("investigate prior operations and recovery references"). It explicitly differentiates from the nearest sibling by naming list_snapshots as the tool for recoverable snapshots.

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 clear when-to-use context (investigating prior operations and recovery references) and names an alternative tool with the condition that selects it (recoverable snapshots). It also surfaces a prerequisite ("Project scope requires initialization"). It stops short of a full when-not list, but for a narrow read tool that is a minor gap.

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