audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement ([requires: audit.read]), the read-only nature of the operation, and the response contents (tool calls, actors, success/denial). It does not mention behavior around the 'limit' parameter, but for a simple read tool this is reasonably complete.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and permission requirement. It is concise, with no wasted words, and effectively communicates the core purpose.

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?

The description clearly states the purpose and permission, but it lacks any mention of the only input parameter 'limit', which is a notable gap. With no output schema or annotations, the description provides a decent overview but is not fully complete for a tool with an input parameter.

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 input schema has one parameter 'limit' with no description, and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it completely fails to do so, leaving the meaning and effect of 'limit' undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'workflow audit trail', further detailing its contents (every tool call, who made it, success/denial). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling user and doc management tools, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for inspecting audit history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tool is audit-related, the usage is clear but only implied.

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