List Scaleway Audit Trail combined events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about cursor-based pagination with no total_count, default 24-hour window, and compacted per-kind behavior. 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?

The description is relatively compact given the complexity (8 parameters, pagination, multi-stream behavior). The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and result format. However, it could be slightly tighter—the permission caveat and error resolution might be better placed in a separate note rather than the main flow.

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 high parameter count (8), full schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description provides adequate context for invocation: it explains the pagination memory model, default time window, and behavioral options (full_detail toggle). The sibling context shows this is part of a large audit family, and the description distinguishes well from related audit tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents—the schema already details defaults, constraints, and filtering behavior for all 8 parameters. The description's mention of defaults (24 hours) and pagination caveats references schema fields but doesn't add new per-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 it lists all three Audit Trail event streams in one chronological feed, with each event tagged by kind (api, auth, or system). This specific verb+resource combination ('list combined events') distinctively maps to the tool's name and purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (timeline investigation across streams) and when to use alternatives (per-stream tools: scaleway_audit_list_events, _list_authentication_events, _list_system_events for single stream needs). Also explains permission requirement (AuditTrailReadOnly) and how to resolve permission failures.

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