Audit Trail User Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'retrieve' is consistent. However, the description does not add behavioral details like pagination (cursor, limit) or the optional nature of user filters, which would help an agent beyond the 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 a single sentence, which is concise but missing critical information about parameters and usage. It is appropriately front-loaded but too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination, optional user filtering, output format, or that actor fields are optional (contradicting the phrase 'by a user'). The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it.

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 adds no value to understanding the 9 parameters. Only 'date' is mentioned implicitly; others like actor_email, cursor, limit, include_raw_events, output_format are not explained, leaving the agent to interpret from names alone.

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 action (retrieve), resource (Automox audit trail events), and specific context (performed by a user on a specific date). This is distinct from broader tools like list_events.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_events_ocsf, list_events). The description only states what it does without any contextual usage hints.

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