audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default audit logging, the ELESYNC_AUDIT=0 disable option, and the order/filter behaviors. It omits return format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides compact parameter explanations. Every sentence adds distinct value, including the default logging behavior and filter semantics, with no filler.

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 with optional parameters and an output schema; the description covers purpose, filters, defaults, and configuration sufficiently. It does not explicitly compare to the sibling `history` tool, but overall it provides enough context for correct 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly explains all three parameters: `last` limits entries newest first, `operation` filters to specific ops, and `client` filters by label. This fully compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'View the audit trail of operations on this vault.' It further clarifies the use case for reviewing AI clients, which differentiates it from sibling tools like recall or remember.

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?

It states the tool is 'useful for reviewing which AI clients are reading or writing memories,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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