get_audit_trail

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

Without annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: it retrieves recent entries (ordering), does not return full scanned text (privacy limitation), and lists return fields. However, it does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or has side effects, though it is implied to be read-only.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, and every sentence contributes value. It is moderately concise, though could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, list retrieval), the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter usage, return fields, and a privacy note. An output schema exists (per context signals), so the description does not need to duplicate structure.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'limit' (max entries, most recent first) and 'risk_level' (optional filter with allowed values 'low', 'medium', 'high'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 uses 'Retrieve recent entries from the guardrail audit log', which specifies the verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_guardrail_stats' (aggregate stats) and 'scan_input'/'scan_output' (scanning operations).

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 explicit usage scenarios: review scans, check compliance history, investigate flagged activity. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context with sibling tools makes differentiation clear.

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