get_audit_log

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the log is 'append-only' and scoped to the current session, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, mention ordering, or describe any other operational caveats. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the key concept ('append-only log') leads the description.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what is returned (log of all egress decisions this session), and the output schema covers return value details. No additional calling information is needed.

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 zero parameters, so per the baseline rule this dimension receives a 4. There is no ambiguity about arguments, and the description needs to explain nothing beyond what the input schema already makes obvious.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('append-only log of every egress decision made this session'). It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like redact_preview, confirm_send, and ask_cloud_llm, which are action-oriented rather than log-retrieval.

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 by specifying 'this session' and 'egress decision', which tells an agent this tool is for auditing session activity. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage is clear by inference, not by explicit guidance.

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