hs4.audit.query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'in-memory/local' hinting at ephemeral data, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether queries return only current session logs. More detail is needed.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions. Conciseness is not an excuse for omitting critical information; the description is too brief to be useful.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or any edge cases. The agent lacks sufficient information to use 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?

There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to parameter names (tool, limit, since, action, result). The agent must infer all semantics from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 queries audit log entries from MCP operations, specifying the resource (audit log) and scope (in-memory/local). This uniquely identifies it among many sibling tools, as no other sibling mentions audit.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or on prerequisites. While it is the only audit tool, the description does not explain context for filtering, pagination, or typical use cases.

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