browser_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: results are sorted newest-first and blocked attempts are included. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of the log content.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The most important behavioral trait (newest-first ordering) is front-loaded, and the special inclusion of blocked attempts is placed as a clarifying aside.

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: one optional parameter, read-only annotation, and a clear behavioral statement. Since there is no output schema, a brief note about the log structure would have been useful, but for a straightforward log-fetching operation the description is sufficient.

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 schema already covers the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description and bounds, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: returns audit logs in latest order. It also adds a distinguishing detail (includes blocked attempts) that sets it apart from the sibling browser action tools, none of which deal with logs.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and description; no exclusions or alternative-route hints are provided.

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