audit_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that sensitive fields (arguments, JSON bodies, cookies, webhook URLs) are deliberately excluded, which shapes what an agent can expect to find. It does not describe log ordering, retention, or response shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the read action is front-loaded and the privacy exclusion follows immediately.

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 read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and privacy scope but omits the 'limit' semantics and any hint about log entry format, ordering, or volume, leaving gaps an agent must 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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage (only default/min/max bounds), and the description never mentions it. An agent must infer that limit caps returned log entries. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Read local operation metadata logs.' Clear what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from any sibling or clarify what 'local operation' means in this trading-platform context (audit of tool calls? order operations?).

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?

No indication of when to use this audit log versus other introspection tools (security_status, session_health, tools_catalog, job_get). No exclusions or alternatives named; usage is only implied by the name.

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