get_audit_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions SSH connectivity for remote execution, which is valuable context, but fails to describe important behaviors like: what format the logs return in, whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The phrase 'if available' hints at conditional access but doesn't explain the conditions.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, though the opening statement could be slightly more specific about what audit logs contain. The parameter explanations are appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage but does have an output schema, the description does a reasonable job covering parameter semantics but leaves significant behavioral gaps. For a tool that potentially involves SSH connectivity and system-level log access, more context about security requirements, error handling, and output format would be beneficial despite the output schema's existence.

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 description provides meaningful semantic context for all three parameters that goes beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'lines' controls the number of log lines retrieved with a default, that 'host' enables SSH connectivity to remote systems with local execution as fallback, and that 'username' is conditionally required based on host presence. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audit logs'), and the conditional 'if available' adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_journal_logs' or 'get_service_logs' that also retrieve logs, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific audit log tool.

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 like 'get_journal_logs' or 'read_log_file' from the sibling list. It mentions the conditional availability of audit logs but doesn't explain what makes audit logs distinct or when they would be preferred over other log retrieval tools.

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