infomaniak_audit_log_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'persistent' nature of the log and the search dimensions, but does not disclose behaviors like result ordering, pagination, or the fact that 'contains' searches across JSON entries (though the schema partially covers this). With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description adds moderate value.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Search the persistent MCP audit log'), and every word earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description gives the search dimensions and use cases, which is adequate for a read-only search tool. It could be improved by mentioning differences from sibling audit tools or how results are ordered, but given the output schema and annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to compensate. It lists the main filter categories (tool name, phase, risk, timestamp range, free text) which map to the schema parameters, giving the agent an overview of what filters are available. However, it does not detail each parameter's syntax or the limit parameter, but the schema provides types and enums, and the description helps connect purpose to parameters.

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 searches the persistent MCP audit log with specific filter criteria (tool name, phase, risk, timestamp range, free text). It distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by focusing on general-purpose search over the audit log. The use cases 'what changed today?' and 'did anything destructive run?' reinforce its 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by listing example questions it answers. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like infomaniak_audit_log_tail or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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