Audit Events OCSF

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds critical behavioral details: required API scopes (organization:manage and users:read) and the 403 error for missing scopes, plus cursor-based pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with each sentence adding distinct value: the main action, filtering support, pagination, and permissions. It is front-loaded and has no unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, pagination, and permissions well. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention that cursor and limit are for pagination (implied but not explicit).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing the category filter values and mentioning date and type filters. However, it does not explain the cursor, limit, or output_format parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 queries OCSF-formatted audit events from the Automox Audit Service v2, with specific filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'audit_trail_user_activity' by emphasizing the OCSF format and the service version.

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 specifies supported filters (date, category, type) and pagination, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like 'audit_trail_user_activity', which could improve guidance.

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