get_audit_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that results are chronological, filtered by 'since', and cover certain event types. However, it does not disclose pagination, response shape, or the behavior when 'since' is null.

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 tight and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the 'since' behavior in the second sentence. It wastes no words, though the missing scope explanation prevents a top score.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not define the required 'scope' parameter, describe the return structure, or state how 'since' defaults behave. The event-type list is helpful but only partially completes the picture.

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. It clearly documents the 'since' parameter as an ISO8601 timestamp with ordering semantics, but it does not explain the meaning of the required 'scope' parameter at all, leaving a significant gap.

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identifies the tool as a human-readable audit trail and lists the event categories it covers (written, invalidated, superseded, resolved) plus the rationale. This distinguishes it from the sibling memory operations, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'gets' or 'returns'.

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 this is for viewing historical audit information but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over write_episode, query_memory, or record_recall_save. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing conditions.

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