get_audit_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately conveys the read-only nature by saying 'shows' and describes the output content (blocked/allowed decisions and reasons). However, it does not disclose limitations like data retention, output limits, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds essential filtering detail without any waste. Every clause contributes value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 read-only log retrieval tool with no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the logs contain, the filtering options, and the purpose. It could mention counting or ordering, but the schema handles parameter details, and the sibling context makes the tool's role clear.

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 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of filtering dimensions (MAC, domain, IP, time range) that maps to the schema, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Count is not mentioned, but the schema covers it.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('audit logs') and specifies the scope: blocked and allowed traffic decisions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on firewall rule outcomes, which is unique among the listed tools like get_dns_queries or search_flows.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—when investigating blocked connections and why they were blocked. It also lists key filters (MAC, domain, IP, time range) that help narrow usage, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions.

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