Export audit logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'Admin only' and 'The export is itself audited', providing extra behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, format, filters, and admin/audit context. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It references 'same filters' without enumerating them, and doesn't describe pagination, limits, or response details. It's adequate for a simple export but lacks depth for a complex 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there are 7 parameters, yet the description only says 'Accepts the same filters as GET /audit-logs'. This is vague and requires the agent to infer parameter meanings from the endpoint reference. It does not explain action, userId, date ranges, or success filters, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 tool exports audit logs, specifies the output formats (CSV/NDJSON), and indicates it streams the filtered result set. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like termix_audit_list_audit_logs by focusing on export rather than listing, and from other audit 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?

It states 'Accepts the same filters as GET /audit-logs' which implies this is the export counterpart to the list operation, and explicitly mentions 'Admin only' as a usage constraint. It does not explicitly contrast with termix_audit_list_audit_logs, but the context is clear enough.

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