View Audit Log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, including that the audit trail is tamper-evident, hash-chained, and logs every tool call, spec handoff, review decision, access denial, and attestation with timestamps. This reveals the read-only, comprehensive nature of the operation, though it does not detail pagination or response format.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the main function; the second elaborates on the content and capabilities without redundancy.

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's simplicity (no output schema, simple parameters, read-only nature), the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it. It explains what is logged, the tamper-evidence aspect, and filtering options. It could mention default limit behavior or return format, but these are not critical for this kind of tool.

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 schema covers 67% of the parameters (limit and since have descriptions, filter_type has an enum). The description adds context about filtering by type and date, which maps to filter_type and since, but does not mention the 'limit' parameter. This is a minor gap, but the description provides meaningful context beyond the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: to view the project's tamper-evident audit trail. It specifies the resource (audit trail) and action (view), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanroom_audit_verify and cleanroom_audit_export, which are for verification and export rather than viewing.

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 explains what the tool does and that it supports filtering by type and date, giving a clear context for when to use it (to view audit logs). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like cleanroom_audit_verify or cleanroom_audit_export, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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