List User Audit Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the user-scoping constraint but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or permission requirements. Given the annotations, this is an acceptable baseline but not enriched.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundant information or 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?

Given the simple read-only list operation, the description is largely complete. It identifies the key scope (user by ID) and notes optional filters, while the schema covers all parameters and annotations cover safety. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling audit log tools, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 all 8 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The tool description only says 'with optional filters' and does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get audit logs for a specific user by ID, with optional filters.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audit logs for a specific user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_org_audit_logs or list_my_audit_logs by explicitly targeting a user ID.

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 usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool compared to other audit log listers (e.g., list_org_audit_logs, list_resource_audit_logs). The context is clear from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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