trmm_audit_log

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds useful scoping context ('filter by days, agent, or username') and its investigative purpose, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, what the 'full' flag does, or the shape of the returned log entries.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then list the key filters and a practical use case. There is no redundant or irrelevant wording.

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 read-only audit log tool, the description gives enough to understand what it does and when to use it. The main gap is the absence of any explanation of the 'full' parameter and the return payload, especially because no output schema is provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for days, agent, and username by framing them as filters. However, 'full', 'page', and 'rows_per_page' are left unexplained, with only their titles/defaults hinting at their role.

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 identifies the resource as the TRMM audit log and defines its content: 'who did what in TRMM.' It also mentions the available filter dimensions, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like trmm_debug_log or trmm_agent_event_log.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'correlating a change with when a problem started.' This gives an agent a clear sense of when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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