run_safe_command__audit_get

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

The description discloses read-only behavior via 'read' and describes parameter behavior (include_rotated, rotated_file_limit). However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, permission requirements, or what happens when audit files are missing or unreadable.

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 concise: one opening sentence plus compact parameter docs. No redundant text, and the structure is easy to parse. Every word adds value.

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?

All parameters are well-documented, making the tool usable, but the response format is not described. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the audit records look like (fields, ordering, etc.). Missing this context reduces completeness.

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 0%, but the description provides explicit @param documentation for all four parameters, including defaults (20, true, 10) and range (1-50). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds semantic 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 states the tool reads recent run_safe_command execution audit records, using a specific verb ('read') and resource ('audit records'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_safe_command__audit_rotate, which implies a different (write/management) function.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description: if you need to view audit logs, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it reference the related audit_rotate tool or any exclusions.

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