get_project_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantic context beyond that: the snapshot is 'immutable' and 'retained', telling the agent it is a frozen historical record rather than live data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the retrieval action and its key are stated immediately.

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 simple two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is mostly complete, but with no output schema the description gives no sense of what an audit snapshot contains or how it is keyed beyond the raw ids.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that audit_id is project-scoped, which ties the two params together, but adds no format, sourcing, or meaning for project_id itself.

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?

Names a specific verb (Load), resource (audit snapshot), and lookup key (project-scoped audit_id), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearest siblings like list_project_audits or compare_project_audits, though the by-ID retrieval semantics imply the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: you must already hold a project_id and audit_id, which suggests this follows a listing call, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing guidance.

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