repo.audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'sanitized' and 'in this session' which are behavioral traits, but does not disclose additional details like idempotency, rate limits, or effects of use. However, for a read-only diagnostic tool, these are less critical.

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: first states purpose, second states usage. No redundant words or repetitive information. Front-loaded with key action.

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?

Tool is simple with 2 optional parameters and no output schema. Description covers purpose, scope, and use case. Could mention ordering or that entries are chronological, but overall sufficiently complete for this context.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (limit, since). Description adds no new parameter meaning beyond 'sanitized audit log entries', which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'sanitized audit log entries', and scopes to 'all tool calls made in this session'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on repo file operations and indexing.

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?

Specifies use case: 'Useful for diagnostics and verifying what was called and whether it succeeded.' Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but given no overlapping siblings, this is a minor omission.

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