spend_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the content (audit records) and limit; it does not disclose side effects, read-only status, authentication needs, or return format. The word 'audit' hints at a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the limit detail is parenthetically appended. It earns its place without redundancy, even though it partially restates the tool name's 'audit' idea.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core action (return recent audit records) and limit behavior. However, it omits the return record structure and any behavioral guarantees (e.g., read-only, pagination), which are more important here because no annotations or output schema exist.

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 documents `limit` as '条数, 默认 10' (count, default 10). The tool description adds the '最多' (at most) qualifier, clarifying that `limit` is a maximum cap rather than an exact count, which is meaningful semantic added value.

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 '最近审计记录(最多 N 条)' clearly identifies the resource (recent audit records) and a limit cap, distinguishing it from siblings like spend_reset or secret_get by topic. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', so an agent must infer the action from the noun phrase.

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 provided about when to choose spend_audit over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative references. The description consists solely of a resource label, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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