Get Session Audit Log

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the result is Markdown and the log contains only mutating operations. It does not describe behavior such as default limits, empty results, or relationship to log clearing, making 3 appropriate given the strong annotations.

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?

One compact sentence conveys the verb, resource, output format, and all scoping variants without filler or duplicated schema content. The most important distinguishing information is front-loaded, and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 read-only log retrieval tool with six fully documented optional parameters, the description is mostly complete: it states the return format, the log's content, and the connection/label selection syntax. The main gap is that it does not point the agent to sibling tools for discovering audit-log labels or clearing the log, but this does not prevent a capable agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all six optional parameters are already documented, including the connection parameter's default behavior and connection:<raw name> syntax. The prose largely restates what the schema already says rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Retrieve mutating-operation audit log Markdown' and immediately identifies the three supported scopes: current connection, named audit-log label, or connection:<raw name>. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_audit_logs or clear_session_log.

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 gives useful context on how to select the connection parameter value, including the special connection:<raw name> form. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative sibling tools such as list_audit_logs or clear_session_log, nor does it mention that list_audit_logs can be used to discover valid audit-log labels. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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