audit

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'rollback' which implies a destructive action, but does not detail any side effects, permissions required, or safety considerations. The query action's behavior (e.g., what is logged, time range) is also unspecified.

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, which is concise but insufficiently informative for a tool with 5 parameters and two distinct operations. It front-loads the main actions but omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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—two actions, five parameters, and an output schema—the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the audit log scope, rollback mechanics, pagination, or filtering. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds no context about return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only implicitly references the 'action' parameter by naming the two enum values. The other four parameters (action_id, tool, search, limit) are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to construct valid requests.

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 two primary actions: 'Query audit log or rollback a previous action.' It uses specific verbs and indicates the resource (audit log) and the rollback operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools, but the name 'audit' is distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose 'query' over 'rollback'. No usage context or prerequisites are provided, which limits an agent's ability to select the tool appropriately.

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