jumpserver_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond them: purely local file read, no bastion contact, no session or configuration required, and an enumeration of the returned fields. Missing only edge behavior such as what an empty trail returns.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the usage trigger, then the safety/operational caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (time, operation, target asset, redacted command, risk, result). Combined with the annotations and fully documented params, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so the limit and filter parameters (including default, ordering, and case-insensitive substring semantics) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (this connector's local audit trail), and enumerates the returned event fields. The phrase 'of THIS connector' and 'in-chat' distinguishes it from bastion-facing siblings like jumpserver_assets or jumpserver_exec.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — 'Use it when the user asks what the AI ran through JumpServer' — and rules out the bastion path ('never touches the bastion, works with no session and no configuration'). It does not name a specific sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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