laserfiche_audit_reason_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the response is grouped by operation type, the chosen id must be passed as audit_reason_id, and it details the error response format. It also implies user-specific availability via 'authenticated user may supply'. This covers the key behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives the usage context, and the third describes the response format and error handling. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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 simple, zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains when to use it, what the response looks like, and how to handle errors. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the sibling list confirms its unique role.

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, and schema coverage is 100% by definition. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on usage and response rather than parameter details.

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 returns audit-reason codes for the authenticated user, a specific resource and verb. It is unambiguously distinct from sibling tools that handle entries, searches, and definitions, so an agent can immediately understand its function.

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 explicitly instructs to use the tool before an audited delete_entry when LF_REQUIRE_AUDIT_REASON is involved, providing a concrete trigger. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context and siblings make alternatives obvious, so the guidance is sufficient.

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