List Audit Events

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

The description adds extensive behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Effect: read', 'Human approval: not required', post-action steps, and error handling scenarios (e.g., login_required, project_not_selected). This provides comprehensive transparency.

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 sections but is verbose (multiple lines). While clear, it could be more concise without losing key information.

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 the tool's complexity (optional parameters, error handling, governance context), the description covers usage, conditions, effect, post-action, and error recovery. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds minor context (e.g., projectId defaults) but no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists checkpoint audit events for a selected project, with a specific use case: inspecting propose, commit, and discard history before governance/export work. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on audit events.

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 includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, providing context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'a narrower tool better matches the intent' but does not name specific sibling tools, slightly reducing specificity.

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