get_push_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that auth is required and discloses the contents of the audit log (views, IPs, user agents). This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and prerequisites.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately adds the auth requirement. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple read 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the core return value and the key context. It could mention pagination or the fact that page defaults to 1, but the schema already provides those details. The description is sufficient to understand what the tool does and returns.

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%, with both 'page' and 'url_token' already having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond 'for a push', so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('the audit log (views, IPs, user agents) for a push'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_active_pushes or expire_push. The specific content of the audit log adds precision.

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 by stating 'for a push', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to choose this tool over siblings. There is no exclusion or alternative naming, so it's clear in context but lacks direct guidance.

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