get_audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, yet it only states what is fetched and that filtering exists. It does not mention read-only safety, default/max result counts, pagination, ordering, or timestamp format requirements, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence is brief but somewhat redundant with the schema's filter parameters, so it does not fully earn 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?

The tool is simple and the schema is fully documented, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return format, pagination, or safety. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tool, count, and since parameters. The description adds only the generic phrase 'Supports filtering' and provides no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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: 'Get the audit log of commands executed.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_command or read_file, which do not retrieve historical audit records. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage signal is 'Supports filtering,' which implies the tool is for retrieving filtered audit entries. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool comparison, leaving usage largely inferred.

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