brc_list_audit_log

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that read-only API calls are not logged, only data changes are recorded, and sensitive values are redacted (via parameter description). This provides good behavioral insight, though it could mention if the tool is non-destructive (implied but not explicit).

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?

Description is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful guidance. It is well-structured for an AI agent to parse and apply rules, though could be slightly more concise.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the scope: logs data changes from the session, excludes read-only calls. It covers the context of use. It doesn't detail the output format (e.g., list of objects), but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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?

Single parameter 'includeTechnicalDetails' with boolean type and default false. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds context: 'Only set this to true if the user asks for technical details. Sensitive values are still redacted.' This clearly explains when to set it true, adding value beyond the schema.

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 tool shows a record of data changes (create, update, delete, etc.) made through the Red MCP server session. It specifies what is logged and what is not, and distinguishes it as the source of truth for 'what did I do today in Red?' questions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for answering questions about user activity in Red/BRC. It also explicitly tells when not to include unrelated chat history, and provides guidance on what to include and exclude. This helps the agent decide exactly when to invoke this tool.

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