run_safe_command__audit_rotate

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'immediately' and 'enforce retention' but does not explain what happens to the existing audit file, whether old files are deleted, if the operation is reversible, or any side effects. The lack of context leaves the agent unsure of the tool's safety profile and consequences.

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 and well-structured. The main action is front-loaded in a single sentence, and parameter docs are appended in a clear @param format. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 relative simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and the exact retention behavior (e.g., whether max_files deletes oldest files). A bit more context on outcomes would make it fully complete.

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 description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining both parameters: max_files is the optional retention count with a range of 1-100, and __mcp_response_mode is an optional response mode with a default of 'content'. This provides meaning and constraints beyond the raw schema types.

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 action (rotate), the resource (run_safe_command audit file), and the effect (enforce retention) in a specific verb+resource form. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_safe_command__audit_get and run_safe_command__execute by focusing on rotation, a distinct maintenance operation.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a specific operational task but does not state prerequisites, situations where it should be preferred, or exclusions. It would benefit from a note like 'Use when you need to immediately archive and limit audit logs' or a comparison to audit_get.

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