Audit log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the log contains only mutating calls (writes are filtered out), it is populated by the bridge, and it is ordered newest-first. It omits truncation/pagination behavior and any retention window, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the payload and ordering, the second defines the use case. Nothing is repeated from the name, title, or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a log entry looks like — and it doesn't (no mention of timestamp, tool/action, actor, or payload fields), nor does it explain the limit semantics. For a one-parameter read tool this is workable but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter (default 50, max 500) is never mentioned in the description. The word 'recent' hints that results are bounded, but the agent gets no guidance on how many entries come back or how to widen the window.

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 names the exact resource and scope: 'Recent mutating calls recorded by the bridge, newest first.' An agent immediately knows this is a read of the bridge's audit trail containing only mutating operations — no sibling tool (wp_health_check, wp_bridge_status, wp_content_list) overlaps with that content, so no disambiguation is needed.

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?

'Check this when you need to know what an agent already changed' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is exactly the right framing for an audit tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g. wp_health_check) or state exclusions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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