Audit Get Recent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the tool returns only mutating calls (not all calls) and that they come from an in-process log (implying non-persistence). However, it does not state that it is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or whether it is destructive. Some transparency is present but significant gaps remain.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is zero filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description omits essential usage details for the only parameter, 'limit'. It does not clarify how 'recent' is defined, what the default behavior is, or any limitations of the in-process log. The tool is simple but the missing parameter semantics makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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% because the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter. The description must compensate for low coverage but does not explain what limit controls (e.g., maximum number of results, ordering, or pagination). An agent cannot infer parameter behavior from the description alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('recent mutating MCP calls from the in-process audit log'), and a clear scope. It is not a tautology of the title and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blackboard or colloquium operations.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving recent mutating calls for auditing purposes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, leaving the usage context implicit.

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