ps_audit_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get audit log entries' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the entries are in. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though not contradictory to annotations (since none exist).

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness contributes to clarity, it also limits detail, but in terms of structure and brevity, it is optimal.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings, return values, behavioral traits, or usage context. For a tool that likely involves querying logs with filters, this minimal description leaves critical gaps, making it inadequate for effective agent use without additional inference or trial-and-error.

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 has three parameters (since, action, limit) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain what 'since' refers to (e.g., timestamp), what 'action' might filter, or how 'limit' affects results. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely ambiguous.

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 'Get audit log entries' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('audit log entries'), which is adequate for understanding the basic function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'audit log entries' entail (e.g., system events, user actions) and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'ps_security_scan' or 'ps_state_drift_history', which might also involve logging or monitoring. This makes the purpose somewhat vague but not misleading.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ps_security_scan' or 'ps_state_drift_history' that might relate to security or state tracking, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection, relying solely on the name and basic purpose.

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