get_audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool queries audit logs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, time ranges, or authentication requirements. The mention of entry types adds minimal transparency.

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 very concise with a single sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the action ('Query') and resource ('audit log entries'). However, it is too brief to fully serve its purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and low parameter count, the description fails to provide adequate context for correct usage. It lacks information on parameter behavior, default limits, or output structure, leaving the agent to guess.

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. However, it does not explain the purpose or usage of the two parameters ('services' and 'limit'). It adds no value beyond what the schema provides (names only).

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 queries audit log entries and specifies the types of entries (auth events, config changes). It distinguishes from siblings as it is the only tool for audit logs, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or contextual hints for usage. The description merely states what it does.

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