audit_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that with 'append-only' (events cannot be mutated) and 'paginated' (results are chunked), but it says nothing about page size, whether there is a continuation token, or maximum result counts.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler words; the scoping traits arrive immediately. It is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented 0%-coverage schema, but as pure conciseness it is nearly optimal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to explain the return shape, yet it does not say what an audit event record contains or how pagination termination is signalled. Annotations cover the safety dimension adequately, making the definition minimally viable but leaving the agent under-informed about results.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the two parameters, and it does not. The word 'paginated' hints that 'after' is a cursor, but the description never states that 'after' is an offset/cursor value or what 'project' must contain, so an agent must guess from the raw JSON Schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read ... audit events') plus two qualifying traits, 'paginated' and 'append-only', so the agent knows it is a read-only, immutable log stream. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as evidence_read or project_open by naming what makes audit events distinct, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot infer from this sentence whether audit events should be consulted before or after security_triage or finding_correct. Usage is at best implied by the resource name alone.

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