get_audit_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves recent audit logs and details what the logs contain, which is useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm it is read-only, define 'recent' (e.g., time window) or mention any prerequisites/rate limits. These are minor gaps given the simple nature of the tool.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second clarifies the value. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema). The description provides the core purpose and the kind of information returned. It doesn't define 'recent' precisely, but given the simplicity and that the schema covers the default limit, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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%: the single optional parameter 'limit' is described in the schema with its default value. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema fully covers it, a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and a specific resource 'execution audit logs of this MCP server', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools (create_seedance_task, get_seedance_task, download_file) which are unrelated. It also specifies what the logs contain ('who called which tool and when'), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 when to use this tool: when one needs to audit recent tool invocations ('Shows who called which tool and when'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different, so no exclusion is needed. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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