get_audit_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the call retrieves history and returns 'scan records and cleanup logs with totals and metrics,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, permissions, or pagination semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a terse Args section and a short Returns line. Every line adds information; there is no repetition of the schema or irrelevant details.

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 two-parameter read-only history tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, both parameters, and the return shape. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but these are less critical for a low-risk retrieval operation, and the existing detail is largely sufficient.

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 both parameters: path is an optional workspace root directory filter, and limit is a maximum record count with a default of 10. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, only leaving ambiguous the exact path format and behavior when path is omitted.

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-object pair: 'Retrieve historical workspace audit scans and cleanup activity logs.' This clearly identifies the resource (audit history) and the action (retrieve), while 'historical' distinguishes it from sibling actions like scan_workspace or audit_workspace_secrets.

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 phrase 'historical workspace audit scans and cleanup activity logs' implies this is for past activity rather than current scans, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions.

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