get_audit_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Get the access audit log showing recent API calls and denials,' but omits critical details such as whether authentication is required, if results are paginated (the 'limit' parameter suggests pagination), what the response format is, or any rate limiting. The description is too brief to adequately inform an agent about operational 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the access audit log showing recent API calls and denials.' It is concise and without wasted words. While it could include more detail, its brevity does not detract from readability.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema (though not shown). The description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks context on authentication, pagination behavior, and expected output structure, which are important for a complete understanding. Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but other behavioral gaps reduce completeness.

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 schema includes a single parameter 'limit' with a default value but no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add any meaning beyond what the schema provides. In a low-coverage scenario, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 retrieves an 'access audit log showing recent API calls and denials.' The name 'get_audit_log' aligns perfectly, and the sibling tools are distinct services (e.g., list_services, yandex_metrika_*), so there is no confusion. The description includes specific content detail ('recent API calls and denials') making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, recommended use cases, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer context purely from the tool name and sibling list.

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