delimit_secret_access_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Side effects: read-only' and 'Calls ai.secrets_broker.get_access_log,' which explicitly discloses read-only nature and internal call. However, it does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the read-only and internal call details are sufficient for transparency.

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 highly concise with six sentences. It is well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidelines, sibling contrast, and side effects. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, contrast, and side effects. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100% with one parameter described. The schema already states 'Optional secret name to filter the log. Empty = all secrets.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond this, so 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Show the audit log of secret accesses.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating what not to use it for (reading secret values or inventorying secrets) and contrasting with delimit_secret_get which appends to the log.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (compliance review, incident investigation, seeing who fetched a credential) and when-not-to-use with alternative tool names (delimit_secret_get, delimit_secret_list). Also includes sibling contrast for additional clarity.

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