audit_logs

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, data retention, or any side effects. The minimal text offers little transparency.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure or breakdown of details. It is not verbose, but it is too brief to be fully effective.

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 four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is very incomplete. It fails to explain the response format, pagination, filtering syntax, or any constraints, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning. It only mentions filtering by user, which covers only the userId parameter. The other three parameters (page, pageSize, filters) are not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves audit logs with optional user filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are audit-related, so there is no ambiguity.

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, nor any prerequisites or context for usage. The description lacks any usage scenario information.

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