aap_get_audit_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it is an alias for activity stream with delete/create focus and mentions the return type, but since an output schema exists, the return type is redundant. No additional behavioral details like auth needs or rate limits are provided.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear verb and resource, followed by a compact args/returns format. Every sentence adds value without any fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return type. However, the phrase 'delete/create focus' is slightly ambiguous and could be clarified, and there is no mention of pagination or any limits beyond the schema's constraints.

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 schema itself has minimal descriptions (username has a description, but limit does not), and the description compensates by explaining limit as 'Number of log entries' and username as 'Filter by actor'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the wording for username slightly differs from the schema's 'Filter by AAP username'.

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 gets AAP audit logs and specifies it as an alias for the activity stream with a delete/create focus. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like aap_get_recent_activity, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for audit logs with a delete/create focus but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as aap_get_recent_activity or aap_get_failed_jobs. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, only a vague contextual hint.

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