queen_audit_list

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes well beyond: scoping of visibility by caller role, a 30-day retention window with a 20,000 id-range backstop, and the caveat that a crash between a completed send and its audit insert can leave a send unrecorded. That last point is exactly the kind of reliability disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then visibility, then limits, then the caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information; the crash caveat is arguably appendix material but is still worth its place.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, access, bounds and retention. It does not describe what fields an audit entry contains, which an agent might want, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 50% – project_id is documented in the schema, but limit is not. The description compensates by stating 'Default 20, maximum 100 entries', which is materially different from the schema's nominal maximum and adds real meaning. It does not restate the queen-only rule for project_id, but the schema already covers that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List confirmed queen writes into other projects') plus ordering ('newest first'). No sibling tool covers this audit view, so the agent can immediately place it.

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?

Explains the access model that governs when the tool returns anything: the queen sees all targets, other callers see only their own project. It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not condition, so it stops 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.