get_audit_trail

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no additional safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the audit log is server-local, describes what the log contains (inspected, proposed, approved, and applied actions), and explains the default count of entries.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanation and use case follow naturally, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool structure (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, parameter semantics, and a concrete usage scenario. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It explicitly explains 'last_n' as the number of trailing audit entries to return and states the default of 30, perfectly compensating for the schema gap.

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 the tool returns the last N entries of the server's own tool-call audit log. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and no sibling tool provides audit functionality, so it is fully distinguished from alternatives.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool at the end of an incident to write an accurate post-incident report, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the unique audit purpose.

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