observability_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-like operation ('Return') and specifies the content, but does not disclose any caveats such as access restrictions, retention period, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is safe/idempotent. For a read-only audit tool, this is adequate but leaves room for more context.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. No filler, every word adds meaning, and it is immediately understandable.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the core purpose and scope, but the term 'recent' is underspecified regarding the time window. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though additional detail on the time window would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details because there are none to describe. It does not overcomplicate or introduce ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('recent audit log entries') with a clear scope ('for write operations performed through this server'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling observability tools like observability_metrics and observability_health, which focus on metrics and health status, whereas this tool returns audit log entries.

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 appropriate usage by specifying the subject (audit log entries) and the subset (write operations), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus the observability_metrics or observability_health siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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