get_audit_log

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the log works even when the API is paused, and secrets (api_key=, value=) are masked before being recorded. This discloses privacy and availability characteristics that annotations do not cover.

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 concise, but contains four sentences rather than the ideal two. Each sentence adds valuable information (purpose, availability, use cases, masking behavior), and it is properly front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant or fluff content.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects). The description explains what the log contains (which agents called which endpoints and when), its availability, and its intended use cases. It does not describe the return format, but the output is implicitly an audit log list, and the lack of an output schema is not a critical gap.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'limit' with its description and defaults. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. No additional semantics are provided, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a recent API audit log showing which agents called which endpoints and when. It has a specific verb ('get') and resource ('audit log'), and the details make its function unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but no sibling covers audit logs, so this is adequate.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'For compliance and debugging agent behavior.' It also notes a unique capability ('Works even when the API is paused') that differentiates it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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