Read the audit log

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

With readOnlyHint already declared in annotations, the description adds the context that values are redacted and that events are recent. This goes beyond the annotation without contradiction, though it could further clarify ordering or pagination.

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 sentence that delivers all key information without redundancy. It leads with the action and resource, followed by event categories and redaction, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations by listing event categories and redaction. Minor gaps like ordering details remain, but overall it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 makes no mention of the filtering or limit parameters. While the schema describes 'type' with an example, 'limit' is left without explanation, and the description does not compensate for this 50% 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 explicitly states the tool returns recent recorded events, enumerating discovery runs, approvals, submissions, and blocked attempts. This clearly distinguishes audit_log from sibling tools like list_queue or list_applications, which cover separate domains.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use audit_log over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The context of reading audit events is implied by the description, but no direct comparison or 'use this when...' statement is present.

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