List audit log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states that every provider action is logged, implying comprehensiveness, but it does not disclose traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'recent' means. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and available filters. There is no wordiness or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It does not explain what 'recent' means, whether there is a default limit, or how entries are ordered. More context would improve usability.

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 description adds meaning to three parameters (project, environment, provider) by stating they are filters, but it fails to mention the 'limit' parameter entirely. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 lists audit entries and mentions that all provider actions are logged, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_audit_log', which likely exports instead of listing.

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 by stating you can filter by project, environment, and provider, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to export rather than list. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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