gatekeeper_get_project_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the scoping detail that the audit log is project-specific, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as access requirements, log format, or ordering.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only audit retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details about the return shape, pagination, or filtering options, but the name and description convey the essential purpose well enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'slug' parameter. It does not explicitly explain that 'slug' identifies the project or describe the expected slug format. The parameter is simple and inferable, but the description adds no direct parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get audit log' and scopes it to 'a specific project.' This clearly distinguishes it from broader audit tools like gatekeeper_list_audit or project management tools like gatekeeper_get_project.

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 implies the correct usage context: call this when you need the audit log for a particular project, identified by slug. It does not explicitly name alternative audit tools or state when not to use them, but the 'specific project' scope provides clear, actionable context.

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