get_audit_log

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions ordering and that entries are 'recent', which is vague. It does not indicate read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

Single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and ordering. No wasted words or repetition. Ideal brevity.

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 description covers the basic purpose and ordering, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, vagueness around what constitutes 'recent' and lack of any additional context (e.g., log retention, clearing) makes it only minimally complete for a simple tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for the 'lines' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (default and cap). No improvement or degradation.

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 it returns recent entries from the local audit log with oldest first ordering. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'audit log' are specific, and the ordering detail adds value. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_log_file, though the name implies distinct purpose.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_log_file or get_service_logs. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided. The description simply states what it does without any direction on appropriate scenarios.

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