List Audits

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full load; it does disclose the data returned (audit records of who did what) and the time window, which is the key behavioral trait. However it is silent on result volume, what happens when there are more entries than max_results (default 100 suggests truncation), ordering, and any permissions required to read audits. Useful but clearly incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the filter detail. The terseness is efficient rather than padded, though the second sentence could carry a bit more without harm.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, which lowers the bar. Still, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves max_results and the 24-hour default undocumented, and gives no hint that results may be capped. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for two of three params: 'nas últimas N horas' maps to hours, and 'opcionalmente por usuário' maps to user. max_results is never mentioned, and neither the default of 24 hours nor the expected user identifier format is stated, so compensation is partial.

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 resource and content: 'Auditoria do CM (quem fez o quê)' — the CM audit trail of who did what, bounded to the last N hours. An agent can tell this is an audit/log listing rather than a metrics or health tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling listers such as list_events, which is the only missing element.

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 only usage signal is 'Filtra opcionalmente por usuário', which describes an optional filter rather than when to choose this tool. There is no statement of when-not to use it, no mention of list_events or list_active_commands as alternatives, and no prerequisite or scope caveats. The agent must infer the use case from the purpose sentence alone.

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