check_audit_log

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what gets analyzed (plugin status, configuration, events, compliance) and listing supported audit systems (MySQL Enterprise, MariaDB, Percona), which helps the agent understand scope and compatibility.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by bullet points for analysis areas and a final sentence on supported systems. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing multiple audit systems) and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and its scope, though it lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be useful since there's no output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on functionality rather than parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'analyzes') and resources ('MySQL audit log configuration and status'), listing four distinct analysis areas. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on audit logs rather than general health, queries, or other database components.

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 implies usage context through the analysis areas listed (audit plugin status, configuration, events, compliance), suggesting this tool is for audit-related diagnostics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'analyze_security' or 'check_database_health', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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