list_audit_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'redacted' and limited to 'recent' events, which adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, access requirements, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the name 'list'.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key behavioral trait ('redacted') in minimal words.

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, with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the ambiguous 'Guardian' terminology and absence of usage guidance leave the definition minimally viable rather than fully 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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name and default value make it self-evident, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clear verb ('Return') and names a specific resource ('recent redacted Guardian decisions and execution outcomes'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like list_pending_actions, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 the tool is for retrieving audit history but provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_pending_actions. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and brief purpose.

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