get_audit_log_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the append-only nature, ordering (most recent first), optional filters (path/tool/since), and the entry structure. It also states a clear coverage limitation, giving the agent accurate expectations.

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 compact, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers filters and limitations efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists, return values are handled. The description covers purpose, scope, filters, ordering, and coverage limits, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to call this tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly explains path/tool/since as optional filters and since as ISO timestamp inclusive. It does not mention limit or vault, but these are self-explanatory from the schema (limit is a count, vault is a vault identifier). It covers the core filtering parameters well.

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 verb ('Query') and resource ('append-only log of write-tool activity'), and clarifies what it is not ('not just the .trash/ state after the fact'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that operate on notes directly.

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 when to use it (audit write activity) and explicitly states what it covers and does not cover (canvas/kanban/excalidraw/bases writes aren't logged yet). However, it does not name alternative tools for those unlogged areas, leaving some inference needed.

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