retrieve_instances_actions_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and mentions filtering, but does not describe pagination behavior, audit retention, return shape, or authorization details.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description repeats the same idea twice with minor errors ('List history...' and 'List and filters the history...'), making it less concise than it could be.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate because the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety. It still lacks differentiation from sibling audit tools and says nothing useful about return values or pagination.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only generically mentions filtering and adds no extra meaning, ordering syntax, or field-specific guidance beyond the schema.

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 a list operation over audit history for instance actions triggered via the API, reinforced by the GET endpoint path. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling audit-list tools such as retrieve_instances_audits_list or other *_audits_list tools.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of the many sibling audit-list tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the audit/filtering wording.

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