Search audit log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool filter uses substring matching on the tool name and that the 'ok' parameter accepts true/false/any. This goes beyond the schema, which lacks enums or descriptions, and helps the agent understand the expected input values.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key filtering criteria. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential filtering semantics. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of the 'count' parameter's meaning, but this is a common concept and the default value is in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'tool' parameter (substring match) and the 'ok' parameter (true/false/any), but does not explain the 'count' parameter, which defaults to 50. This partial coverage adds value but leaves one parameter undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 states the verb 'Filter' and the resource 'audit trail', and specifies the filtering criteria (tool name substring and ok status). It is clear and specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'audit_log' tool, which likely shows the unfiltered log. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 for searching/filtering the audit log, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_log' or other search tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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