merovingian_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Query', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly declare that it is non-destructive or what permissions are required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this omission leaves an agent uncertain about side effects.

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 extremely concise: one line for the purpose, then a clean parameter list. No extra words or redundancy. All text serves its purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 with 3 optional parameters and an output schema covering return values. The description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, the lack of behavioral guarantees and usage guidelines leaves gaps, especially given the absence of annotations. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage (only titles), so the description is essential. It briefly explains each parameter: 'Filter by tool name (optional)', 'Look back N minutes (optional)', 'Max entries to return (optional, default 50)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, but the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'N minutes' lacks precision). Adequate but not rich.

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 uses a specific verb 'Query' and resource 'the audit log of tool invocations', clearly stating the tool's function. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like merovingian_register or merovingian_scan, the name and description are sufficiently distinct for an agent to understand its 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?

The description contains no information about when to use this tool, prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternatives. It only lists parameters. For an audit query tool, one would expect guidance on its role (e.g., 'to review past invocations'), but none is provided.

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