Query the complete audit trail for an agent or list all agents with signed audit history. Verify HMAC signatures to ensure data integrity across devices.
跨设备审计轨迹查询——按 agent_id 查完整轨迹（HMAC 验签）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Agent 身份码（缺省 = 列出全部有轨迹的 agent） | |
| include_peers | No | 是否包含跨设备 peer 记录（缺省 false——仅本地） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one useful behavioral detail — 'HMAC 验签' (HMAC signature verification) — which tells the agent results are integrity-checked. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention pagination/limits; for a query tool with zero annotation coverage these are notable gaps.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('跨设备审计轨迹查询') and places the HMAC detail in parentheses as secondary. No wasted words; only a brief routing note would have made it a 5.
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 2-parameter query tool with full schema coverage this is mostly adequate: purpose, parameter defaults, and a behavioral note are covered. But it omits differentiation from the several audit-related siblings and any indication of the return shape (no output schema exists), leaving gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.
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 both parameters (agent_id and include_peers) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description's '完整轨迹' and '跨设备' loosely map to these parameters but add no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline 3.
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 states a specific verb ('查询'/query) and resource ('跨设备审计轨迹'/cross-device audit trail), scoped by agent_id. It is clear about what it does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from audit-related siblings such as run_audit, audit_file, and audit_data_change — the cross-device qualifier only implicitly separates it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the audit siblings (run_audit, audit_file, audit_data_change, worklog_query). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given; usage context is only implied by the tool's name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.