export_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool exports a list, but it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, whether authentication or permissions are needed, or what the exact output format is. For a simple export tool this is a notable gap, but the description is not misleading.

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 concise sentence that contains the action, resource, output format, and purpose. There is no filler or repetition, and every word adds value.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the action, the output shape ('list'), and the purpose. It could have elaborated on the content or format of the audit records, but this is a minor omission given the low complexity of the tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Export'), the resource ('audit records'), and the output form ('as a list'). It also conveys the intended purpose ('for offline review'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_event, verify_audit, and stream_stats, which involve different operations on related resources.

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 phrase 'for offline review' gives some implied context for when to use the tool, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since sibling tools exist, some guidance on when to choose export_audit over them would have been helpful, though the core use case is inferable.

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