get_org_audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement, phrase syntax, and include parameter options. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or behavior for empty results—information useful for a query tool.

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 (three lines) and front-loaded with the main action. It covers auth, then parameter explanations. A slightly more structured format (e.g., using colons or bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains clear and efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed), the description addresses the core purpose, auth, and param semantics. It lacks specifics on query scoping (e.g., time range, limit) and potential errors, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the phrase parameter's GitHub audit-log search syntax with an example and listing possible values for include (web, git, all). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default.

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 queries an organization's audit log. It specifies the resource (organization) and action (query), differentiating it from sibling tools that handle other data like branch protection, rulesets, and repositories.

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 notes the required authentication (org-owner token with read:audit_log), which is a key usage guideline. It does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but since no other sibling tool accesses audit logs, the context is clear.

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