sac_export_get_audit_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that Data Audit must be enabled, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or any constraints beyond the prerequisite. This is insufficient for a tool with no behavioral metadata.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that state purpose and a key requirement. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the tool is complex. The description is minimal and fails to explain common usage patterns, parameter relationships, or what the return value contains. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meaning it does not leverage the opportunity to enhance understanding.

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 'Get' and resource 'audit data (change history)', making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'sac_audit_export', which might be similar, but the name itself provides distinctiveness.

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 mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires Data Audit enabled on model', which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sac_audit_export' or other export tools, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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