List Scaleway Audit Trail events

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses the permission requirement, default time window, and important pagination semantics: cursor-based with no total_count, max_pages as a safety cap, and response indicating truncation with a continuation token. It also predicts a common failure mode (permissions_denied) and suggests a remedy using another tool. This is rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers permission and pagination in a few dense sentences. Every sentence adds value and no redundancies exist with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, permission, defaults, pagination behavior, and response indicators (truncation, continuation token). It also hints at returned fields with 'who did what, when, from where, against what' and mentions the full_detail toggle. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already covers all 7 parameters with 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the real-world impact of max_pages (safety cap, not completeness guarantee) and that method_name_contains is client-side, which isn't fully captured in the schema. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'Audit Trail events' with scope 'across this Organization'. It distinguishes from sibling audit event tools by noting 'the same data as the console's Audit Trail > Events page', clarifying it is the general event stream. This provides a clear, specific 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 explains when to use this tool (general audit trail listing) and gives a critical prerequisite: requires AuditTrailReadOnly permission on the server's credential, with troubleshooting advice. It also notes defaults (last 24 hours) and pagination behavior, giving clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_authentication_events or list_system_events, though the scope is implied.

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