bookstack_audit_log_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'track system activities and user actions,' hinting at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state that it's a safe, non-destructive operation. It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema implies), or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List audit log entries') and adds context ('to track system activities and user actions'). There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a list tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. It's complete enough to understand what the tool does but not how to use it effectively in context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain filter usage or sorting implications). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List audit log entries to track system activities and user actions,' which includes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('audit log entries'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on audit logs rather than books, pages, users, or other resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'bookstack_books_list') beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), when it's appropriate (e.g., for monitoring or debugging), or how it compares to other tools like 'bookstack_search' or 'bookstack_system_info' for similar purposes. Usage is implied through the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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