audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'query', but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, authorization requirements, or response format, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, clear, and fluff-free sentence. It is concise and readable, though its brevity sacrifices potentially valuable context.

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?

The tool has six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-sentence description is grossly insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly or interpret its results.

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%, and the description offers no explanation for any of the six parameters (actor, limit, since, until, severity, profileName). An agent cannot determine what values are valid or how they influence the audit log query.

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 states the core function with a specific verb and resource: '查询审计日志' (query audit logs). This is clear and actionable, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_query_history or get_metrics, and it largely restates the tool name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related query/history tools, but the description provides no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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