audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content of the log (actor/action/timestamp), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what 'recent' means in practice.

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 short parenthetical sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the optional filter. No filler.

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 output schema and zero required parameters, the description is adequate but leaves the two parameters (ref format, limit semantics) and the log's ordering/unbounded-history behavior unaddressed.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies that 'ref' is optional and scopes the log to a single credential, but never defines the accepted ref format (id vs name) and ignores 'limit' and its default of 30 entirely.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: recent vault activity with the categories of events (revealed/used/changed) and the temporal frame (when). An agent can tell this is an activity feed, distinct from credential_history or list_credentials, though the relation to credential_history is not spelled out.

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 phrase 'Optionally for one credential' implies the unfiltered-by-default behavior and the filter case, but it never states when to prefer this over credential_history or how far back 'recent' reaches.

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