audit_log

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

The description discloses ordering (newest first), content (dry-run and execute), and filter capability (by one node). Although no annotations exist, the description effectively communicates the tool's read-only nature and output characteristics.

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 with two front-loaded sentences providing essential information without unnecessary words.

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 simple query tool, the description covers the key aspects: content, ordering, and filtering. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format, but the limit parameter is not explained, leaving a minor gap.

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 compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter as a node filter but does not mention the 'limit' parameter. This is partial coverage, but the baseline for 0 params would be 4; here there are 2 params and only one is described.

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 it provides recent audit entries (dry-run and execute), newest first, with optional name filtering. It is distinct from sibling tools like fleet_status or node_detail, which serve 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 use for retrieving recent audit logs, optionally for a specific node. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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