audit_user_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about whether this is a read-only query, what permissions are required, how far back logs are retained, or what happens when no matching access records exist. 'Audit' implies a read, but this is never stated.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

This is a 5-parameter audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate for a lot and does not. It omits scope, permission requirements, and any indication of what the audit result contains, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's behavior.

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 every parameter (host, username, timeRange, connectionName, includeFailedAttempts) is already documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no format, syntax, or interaction details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: auditing user access to the database. It is clear what the tool is about, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as detect_suspicious_activity, show_grants, or list_privileges, all of which could plausibly be described as 'auditing access'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., that a connection must exist or that audit logging must be enabled). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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