sassy_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds specific behavioral context: log location (~/.sassymcp/audit.log), the record types, and the fact that arguments are sanitized/secret-redacted, plus the ordering and default count. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The read-only flag is front-loaded, followed by purpose, content, parameter behavior, and a sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns, how the parameter behaves, and the use case. Nothing essential is missing; an agent can call it correctly without further information.

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 has only 'count' with no description (coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining that count sets the number of most recent lines returned, defaults to 50, and that output is newest last. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 tail of the audit log, specifies the content (timestamp, tool name, sanitized arguments, policy/interceptor events), and explicitly contrasts with sassy_audit_search. This distinguishes it from siblings without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'Use it to review what tools were called recently and with what arguments' and directs the agent to sassy_audit_search when searching for a term. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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