read_minutes_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: each event contains 시각 (time), note_id, write_mode, 변경 줄 수 (changed line count), and 내용 해시 (content hash), and the response is ordered latest first. This gives the agent a concrete expectation of what the audit log contains without repeating annotation information.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a usage context line, and a compact Args/Returns block. It front-loads the main action and use case, then provides the essential parameter and return information. There is minor redundancy (e.g., Args block partially repeats schema descriptions), but it's not excessive. The description is concise and easy to scan.

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 read-only audit log tool with an existing output schema (AuditResponse), the description covers the key aspects: the purpose, the specific flow it supports, the event contents, and the ordering. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or that it only covers saved minutes (not drafts), but these are minor gaps given the output schema and the simplicity of the tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to call 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 100% (both limit and note_id have clear descriptions in the schema). The description adds some context (e.g., that limit is for 최신순 최대 건수, note_id filters a specific memo) but does not provide significantly different information beyond what the schema already documents. Since the schema carries the burden, the baseline 3 applies; the description doesn't go beyond that.

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 states a specific verb (조회/retrieve), a specific resource (회의록 저장 감사 로그/minutes save audit log), and the ordering (최신순/latest first). It further clarifies the intended use case (submitting execution evidence for the AWAITING_APPROVAL → SAVED flow), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_saved_minutes or read_meeting_note.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'AWAITING_APPROVAL → SAVED 흐름의 실행 증거를 제출할 때 사용합니다.' This is a clear context for use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose itself naturally separates it from siblings (e.g., list tools are for listing, read tools are for single notes). The context provided is sufficient for an agent to decide when this is the right tool.

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