get_audit_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the log is persistent, on-disk, spans sessions, and records write operations (sends, moves, deletes, drafts). It does not contradict the annotation. No mention of return format or ordering, but enough safety/behavior 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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, use case, and explicit alternative. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity read-only listing tool with readOnlyHint annotation and pagination params in schema, the description covers purpose, scope, persistence, and sibling differentiation. It does not describe return fields, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'entries' language and usage context.

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 description coverage is 50%: only offset has a description. The tool description does not elaborate on limit/offset, but offset is self-documented in the schema and limit has a default. This is adequate but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return recent entries from the persistent on-disk audit log of all write operations performed by this server.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by contrasting with get_logs for in-session debugging.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use for reviewing mutations across sessions, and explicitly says 'Prefer get_logs for debugging in-session behavior and transient connection errors.' This names an alternative and gives exclusion criteria.

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