list_audit_events

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, read-only nature, permissions required, return format). The description essentially repeats the tool name, offering no additional behavioral insight.

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?

At 6 words, the description is extremely concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It states the core purpose but omits useful context, making it minimally adequate but not optimally balanced.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description could be sufficient if it explained the parameter and behavior. However, it fails to elaborate on scope values or any side effects, leaving the agent underinformed 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'scope' with two enum values and no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds the phrase 'for a scope', which loosely associates the parameter with the action but does not explain the meaning of the enum options ('project' vs 'global') or how they affect the results.

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 'List audit events for a scope.' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (audit events) and adds scoping context. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other list tools (list_facts, list_skills, list_snapshots) among the siblings, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, contextual triggers, or exclusion criteria. The phrase 'for a scope' hints at the parameter but does not convey usage context.

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