Delimit Secret Access Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces the read-only side effect and names the underlying call 'ai.secrets_broker.get_access_log.' It also adds useful behavioral context by noting that delimit_secret_get appends to this log while this tool reads it back, which helps the agent understand the operational relationship.

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 well-organized with clear labeled sections: core purpose, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation guidance without repetition or 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?

For a simple read-only audit-log tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, sibling relationships, and side effects. It provides everything an agent needs to decide when to call it and how it behaves.

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 already fully documents the single optional 'name' parameter with the meaning of an empty value. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the audit log of secret accesses.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools delimit_secret_get and delimit_secret_list by stating what each is for, so an agent can select this tool with confidence.

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 description gives concrete use cases ('compliance review, incident investigation, or to see who/what fetched a credential') and explicit negative guidance ('When NOT to use: to read a secret value... or to inventory secrets...'), naming the alternative tools. This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool is appropriate.

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