spraay_audit_query

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is clear. Description adds that data persists in Supabase and costs $0.005 per query, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or default behavior when no parameters are provided.

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 sentences cover core functionality, sorting, and cost. Front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return type is covered. However, the description does not specify default behavior when no filters are applied (e.g., returns most recent entries), nor does it mention pagination beyond the limit parameter. For a tool with all optional parameters, more context on expected output with no filters would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description reiterates filter dimensions (actor, action, resource, time range) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. No parameter relationships or combinations are explained.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries the audit trail with filters (actor, action, resource, time range) and returns sorted results. The name 'audit_query' contrasts with sibling 'spraay_audit_log' (likely a write tool) and 'spraay_logs_query' (for general logs), but the description does not explicitly distinguish them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like spraay_logs_query or spraay_audit_log. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or trade-offs.

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