Recent audit events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: event contents are sanitized at write time, no raw stdout/stderr or secrets are included, and results are bounded metadata summaries. This goes beyond the annotations well.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by relevant behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 presence of an output schema, the description needn't explain return values in detail. It covers the essential behavior for a read-only audit tool, though it could clarify the limit parameter's default and effect given the 0% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema does not describe the 'limit' parameter. The description mentions 'max 100' but doesn't explain the default of 20 or the parameter's purpose. With only one optional parameter, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description could compensate more for the low coverage.

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 ('Return the most recent sanitized audit events') with a clear scope bound (max 100). It's distinguishable from siblings like git.status or shell.run, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other toolhub tools beyond scope.

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 through 'most recent' and the bounded nature, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternatives. It's adequate but leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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