export_audit_trail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a strong job: it discloses the exact format, field count, hash-chaining per RFC 8785, placement of memory digest and recalled ids under action_detail.inspeximus, and salted digest naming. It also clarifies agent_id is a URI and agent_version a semver. It doesn't mention side effects like file overwriting or permissions, but the export nature is reasonably clear.

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?

Two sentences pack a lot of specific detail without fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the format specifics follow logically. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient for the technical content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite comprehensive: it explains the output format, field mapping, and constraints. It omits details like whether the file is overwritten or appended and how session_id filters, but given the complexity, the provided information covers most agent needs. It is not a simple tool, and the description is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds constraints for agent_id (URI) and agent_version (semver), which is valuable, but does not explain out_path or session_id. Given four parameters, it covers only half, leaving the rest to inference. Partial compensation but not complete.

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 verb (write) and resource (action ledger to a specific IETF draft JSONL format), with additional format details that distinguish it from other export tools like export_subject or registration_export. It precisely defines the output contract.

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 implies the tool is for exporting the action ledger in a specific format but does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools such as audit_bundle or export_subject. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, though the format specificity offers implicit context.

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