Get Audit Log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pagination, newest-first ordering, full-organization scope without filters, and the need for organization context. It does not detail response field shapes, but that is not necessary at this level.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by scoping guidance and key behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no redundancy or filler.

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 9-parameter optional-filter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenario, pagination, ordering, and organizational context. It could mention response shape more explicitly, but the description already conveys what the log reveals well enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds useful context around the entityId filter and the unfiltered pagination behavior, but it does not significantly enrich the semantics of the other parameters.

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 a specific operation ('Read the API design audit log') and explains what the log contains: who changed what, when, and the actor type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_request_logs or get_publish_history by focusing on audit history with entity filtering.

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?

It gives explicit practical guidance: filter by entityId before modifying something you didn't write, and notes the unfiltered behavior returns the whole organization history. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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