get_access_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the access trail is sensitive and requires the same grant as the findings register. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or read-only status, though returning a log implies no mutation.

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 two short sentences with the purpose stated first and the authorization caveat second. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description provides the core subject and an important sensitivity note. It does not explain when to select it over siblings, but the tool's simplicity and existing output schema reduce the need for more detail.

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 documents only a 'limit' integer with default 20 and no description, while the description says 'Recent' but never explains how limit applies. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, the agent must infer the parameter's semantics.

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 identifies the resource: recent tool invocations against this server, including denials. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get' and the content make the operation obvious. It also distinguishes from sibling tools focused on controls, evidence, findings, and identity.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling; it only defines what it returns and adds a permission caveat. The use case of needing recent tool invocations is implied by the purpose, so guidance is present but not explicit.

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