List Scaleway Audit Trail authentication events

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing: separate endpoint from its sibling, actual event types returned, cursor-based pagination with no total_count, and a default 24-hour window. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Everything earns its place: first sentence defines scope and event types, second differentiates from sibling, third explains permissions, fourth notes default window, fifth covers pagination. No filler, every sentence is independently useful.

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?

Despite having no output schema and 6 parameters, the description completely covers: purpose, event types, permission requirements, failure mitigation, time default, pagination behavior, and sibling differentiation. The 100% schema coverage with good param descriptions complements the main text perfectly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for pagination ('Safety cap on pagination (100 items/page)') and the full_detail parameter ('drop user_agent and per-resource detail blobs'), which provide meaningful semantics beyond the schema descriptions. Only minor gap: could explain recorded_after/recorded_before more explicitly in terms of event timestamps.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists authentication events (logins, API-key/token auth, MFA outcomes) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling scaleway_audit_list_events by specifying it covers authentication activity only, not API/resource activity. The verb 'list' is appropriate for a read-only endpoint.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly names the sibling tool (scaleway_audit_list_events) for differentiation, identifies required permissions (AuditTrailReadOnly), explains a common failure mode (permissions_denied), and provides a step-by-step remediation path (grant via scaleway_iam_set_policy_rules at organization scope). Also notes default time window (24 hours).

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