fossa_get_audit_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description consistently states 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral context: every entry records who acted, on what, old/new value; both views take same filters; starting_after and offset semantics. This goes beyond annotations to explain edge-case behavior.

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 sentences, all highly informative and directly relevant. No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose, then practical usage tips. Each sentence earns 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?

Despite 13 parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the most critical aspects: read-only nature, data content, count/list modes, and pagination strategy. The presence of an output schema fills in return-value details. It is complete for an agent to choose and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for key parameters: view (list/count), starting_after (row-id cursor), offset (drifts), and clarifies filters apply to both views. However, many of the 13 parameters (e.g., topics, actions, sort_by, dates) are left to schema titles; the description doesn't explain their exact format or interaction, making it slightly incomplete.

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 reads the organization's audit log or counts matching entries, using specific verbs ('Read', 'count') and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from potential siblings like fossa_export_audit_logs by focusing on reading/counting rather than exporting.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: run view="count" first to size a query before paging, and use starting_after (row-id cursor) for reliable paging vs offset which drifts. This is concrete when-to-use and how-to-use instruction beyond general context.

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