dokploy_audit_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by indicating this is a read operation, listing all filters, and explicitly documenting the wire-level vs MCP parameter naming. It does not describe the return format or pagination behavior beyond limit/offset, but the provided details are substantial.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. It is dense but well-structured, making efficient use of space.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, provides defaults and limits, and clarifies a potential naming conflict. It does not describe the output structure, but that is not essential for invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool 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 only 30%, so the description compensates by explaining all filter parameters, enumerating allowed values for auditAction and resourceType, and adding default/max information for limit and offset. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Read the Dokploy audit log with filters', which clearly specifies the verb (Read), resource (audit log), and scope (with filters). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on specific resources like projects or deployments.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (reading audit logs) and states that the only action is 'list', which defines the operation scope. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools.

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