audit_list

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

No annotations provided, but description explicitly marks the operation as a read via [READ]. Discloses limit parameter behavior (returns returned, limit, truncated fields) to show how truncation is reported. Could mention authentication needs or rate limits, but adequate for a read-only list tool.

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?

Three lines total: purpose line followed by two parameter explanations. Front-loaded with [READ] and purpose, no extraneous words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, description explains the tool's purpose and both parameters well, including response details for limit. Could explicitly state the return structure (list of audit records with the fields mentioned), but overall complete for a simple list tool with two parameters.

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 description provides full meaning. Explains limit as max rows (default 500) with truncation reporting, and target as Prism Central target name (optional). Adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with [READ] and clearly states it lists config audit records with specific fields (extId, operation type, user, creation time). Distinguishes from sibling list tools like event_list, alert_list, etc., which deal with different record types.

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?

Provides clear context that it lists audit records and explains the two optional parameters. Does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like event_list or alert_list, but the purpose is distinct enough to infer.

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