list_audit_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It scopes the events to 'administrative actions and system events' and 'list' implies non-destructive read, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, pagination, or any access prerequisites. The assertion is not misleading, but could add more explicit safety semantics.

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?

Two sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second provides supporting use cases. No wasted wording, front-loaded with the key action.

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?

The output schema was already included, and the parameters are simple and 100% covered by the schema. The description adequately captures purpose and use cases. A bit more explicitly about filter usage or a confirming 'read-only' could be added, but overall the agent is well-positioned to use this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the page, size, and filter parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the meaning.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the specific resource ('Horizon audit events'), clarifying with 'administrative actions and system events'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sessions or get_settings, which target different resources.

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 states practical use cases: reviewing recent changes, troubleshooting, and compliance auditing. This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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