gatekeeper_list_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about recency and event scope, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds scope and event types. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with rich annotations and a single nullable parameter, the description tells the agent what it returns and at what scope. The only notable gap is undocumented limit semantics, but the overall picture is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'limit' is described only in the schema as nullable integer with default null; the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not explain what limit controls or what null means.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'list ... audit log entries' with an explicit scope ('across all projects') and event categories ('block/unblock/payments'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gatekeeper_get_project_audit, which targets a single 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 phrase 'across all projects' implies this is the tool for a global audit view, and siblings like gatekeeper_get_project_audit exist for per-project queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions.

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