Audit Events OCSF

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: client-side filtering, pagination, time conversion, permissions (specific scopes required), and edge-case handling (unmappable category results in unfiltered response). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.).

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 lengthy but dense with information. It front-loads the main purpose and then systematically details parameters and behavioral nuances. While every sentence adds value, some sections (e.g., exact details on unmappable categories) could be condensed for brevity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior, the description covers nearly all aspects: filtering, pagination, permissions, and response metadata. It lacks a full enumeration of response fields, but it explains key structures like `applied_filters` and `events_before_filter`. Overall highly complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, constraints (e.g., date required, category_name prefix matching), defaults, and behavior (cursor pagination, output_format). It adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying OCSF-formatted audit events with filtering by date and event type. It specifies the source (Automox Audit Service v2). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'audit_trail_user_activity' or 'list_events', though the context of OCSF format is unique.

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 provides detailed guidance on parameter usage, especially the client-side nature of category_name filtering and the behavior when tokens are unmappable. It also notes that human-readable strings are preferred over raw integer UIDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for non-OCSF audit events).

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