team_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('immutable trail'), admin-only, and that events are automatically recorded. It does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., non-admin access) or rate limits, but covers the essential behavioral traits for a safe audit tool.

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 (4 sentences + example) and front-loaded with the purpose statement. Every sentence adds value, there is no redundancy, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, prerequisites, related tools, and provides an example. The output format is only hinted via the example, which could be elaborated, but for a list view it is 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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by linking the requester parameter to the admin requirement and providing an example call with output. This contextual information helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 verb ('View') and the resource ('governance audit log for a shared brain'). It explicitly mentions the immutable trail of role changes and confirmations, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like team_assign_role and team_confirm by focusing on viewing the audit history rather than performing actions.

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: it is essential for enterprise compliance and security reviews, and it is admin-only once governance is active. It also mentions that events are automatically recorded on team_assign_role and team_confirm, implying when to use the audit log. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives.

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