read_audit_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the log is append-only (immutability), contains both applied and rejected actions with actor/params, and is explicitly fail-open and unscoped, which are critical behavioral traits. This is strong transparency, though it omits concerns like pagination or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a key caveat. No unnecessary words.

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 description gives a good high-level overview but lacks details on filter semantics, return structure, and access controls. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these gaps reduce its completeness, though the tool is relatively simple.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the 'action' or 'target' parameters or how they interact with the log. Only 'status' is partially clarified by the phrase 'applied and rejected'. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Read the append-only audit log: every applied and rejected action, with actor and params', which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on orders, customers, and products. The 'unscoped administrative view' phrase further clarifies its role.

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 communicates that this is an unscoped administrative view, implying it is for admin-level audit use where visibility filters are bypassed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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