get_audit_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool reads audit logs, implying a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. However, it fails to explicitly declare safety (e.g., that it does not modify data) and does not disclose any potential limitations like authentication requirements or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose. However, it is too brief and lacks details about parameters and usage, making it less helpful. It earns a middle score as it is not wasteful but is incomplete.

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 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains the purpose and use case but omits parameter semantics and behavioral details. The output schema may cover return values, but the lack of parameter explanation leaves a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides no information about 'limit' (capped number of logs) or 'since_seq' (starting sequence ID). This leaves the agent without crucial guidance on how to use the parameters effectively.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads recent write operation audit logs, specifying the resource (audit logs) and the action (read). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like execute_write (writing) and read_query (reading data) by focusing on write history, and mentions availability for any schema, leaving no ambiguity.

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 for LLM self-checking write history ('便于 LLM 自查写历史'), providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., instead of read_query), nor does it mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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