security_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description merely repeats 'Read-only' without adding behavioral context such as what data is returned, whether any permissions are required, or how enabling audit logging is represented. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds little beyond redundancy.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the read-only note is kept brief at the end. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a minimal but adequate indication of what is returned: audit log settings and how to turn audit logging on. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned information, so an agent still has to call the tool to discover its output.

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 there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies, and no additional meaning is needed.

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 resource (audit log settings and how to turn audit logging on), but the opening phrase 'Audit tab data' is vague and does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like security, security_admin_capabilities, or security_change_plan. An agent can infer it is an audit-information tool, but the scope is not precisely nailed down.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Read-only' is a safety note, not usage guidance, and no sibling tool is named or contrasted.

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