get_audit_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', implying it is read-only, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the endpoint is always available. This is insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence), but it lacks structure such as bullet points or separation of purpose and parameters. It is concise but at the expense of completeness; a bit more detail would not harm conciseness significantly.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and 35+ sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, filtering semantics, or typical use cases. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 description does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. Schema description coverage is 50% (2 of 4 parameters described). For undocumented parameters (principal, application), the description adds no meaning, failing to compensate for the gap.

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 states 'Read /actuator/auditevents', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_health_status or get_beans because it targets a specific actuator endpoint. However, it does not elaborate on what audit events are, so it's not fully self-explanatory.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related sibling tools (e.g., get_health_status, get_beans), the description should indicate scenarios for audit events filtering. The lack of such context reduces usability.

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