Get datastore audit log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are ordered newest first, time bounds use RFC3339 format, and the log includes jobs and resource create/delete events. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no filler. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, followed by the essential time-format detail. Every word contributes to correct invocation.

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?

The schema richly documents all parameters, including the type-filtering caveat and limit constraints, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the key ordering and time-format context. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape could be helpful, but it is not necessary for invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the time format with a concrete RFC3339 example and by enumerating the event types ('jobs, resource create/delete, info lines') that map to the 'type' parameter. This supplements the schema descriptions meaningfully.

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 states a specific verb ('Query'), a clear resource ('audit log of a datastore'), and the content scope ('jobs, resource create/delete, info lines'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ccx_admin_get_datastore and ccx_admin_list_datastores, 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 when to use this tool: when you need a datastore's audit log. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, such as when to prefer ccx_admin_get_datastore or ccx_admin_list_datastores instead. The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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