laserfiche_audit_reason_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully discloses behavior. It details the return format (grouped by operation type, each with id, name, description), failure modes (error slugs like auth_failed), and the fact that the entity is a query/list operation. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage context. It is comprehensive but slightly verbose; minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing 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 zero-parameter tool, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, return format (including pseudo-schema), failure modes, and error handling. The output schema existence is noted, and the description provides a richer explanation than the schema alone.

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 no parameters (schema is empty). Per calibration, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output structure and usage context, far exceeding the baseline. It fully compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Return the audit-reason codes the authenticated user is allowed to supply,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., get_entry, list_folder) which are general retrieval operations, whereas this tool returns codes for a specific use case.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use before delete_entry or get_document_edoc (with export auditing) when LF_REQUIRE_AUDIT_REASON=true or when the user is asking for an audited delete.' It also explains how to interpret the response and adapt behavior based on the operation type.

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