neurover_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no information about pagination behavior, ordering, retention window, or what entries contain. For a log-reading tool with an open-world hint, the description contributes essentially no behavioral 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?

It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than tight writing. There is no front-loaded verb or scoping clause to anchor the agent, so the economy does not help selection.

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?

With two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no description detail, an agent cannot know what the log entries look like or how to page through them. The annotations cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, but the functional gaps remain substantial for a data-retrieval tool whose results drive downstream reasoning.

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% for two parameters, so the burden is entirely on the description, which only obliquely hints at 'account' via the word 'аккаунта'. It says nothing about what 'page' controls, pagination size, defaults, or whether account filtering is expected. This is a clear compensation failure.

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 identifies the resource as an account action/security journal, which tells an agent broadly what data it returns. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from nearby siblings such as neurover_statistics, neurover_notifications, or neurover_auth_status, which could plausibly cover overlapping ground. The intent is inferable but not sharp.

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?

There is no guidance at all on when to call this versus the many adjacent account/audit-related siblings. No prerequisites, no mention of what kinds of questions this log answers, and no exclusions are given. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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