audit_audit_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It indicates the tool returns {lines, count} and exports events, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption for large exports). The description is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a fragment. It front-loads the core purpose ('Export events as JSON lines') and immediately lists parameters and return structure. Every word serves a purpose 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 tool's simplicity (3 optional params, output schema exists) the description covers the main use: export with filters and return format. It lacks explicit mention that after/before are timestamps and event_type values may come from audit_audit_types, but the output schema likely covers return details. Overall, it is fairly complete for a basic export tool.

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 description must add meaning. It explicitly states 'Filter by event_type, after, before', which clarifies their purpose as filters. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's parameter names and types. However, it does not specify the expected format for after/before (e.g., Unix timestamp) or the possible values for event_type.

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 clearly states the tool exports audit events in JSON lines format, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_audit_search or audit_audit_log by specifying 'export' and the output format, though it could explicitly differentiate from similar tools like audit_audit_get.

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 mentions filtering by event_type, after, before, which implies use cases, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_audit_search for complex queries, audit_audit_get for single events). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are given.

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