workflow_get_task_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing filtering semantics: compensated and invalidated events are excluded by Workflow Service. This tells the agent the returned stream is pre-filtered, which is meaningful behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action ('Read the valid task audit stream') is front-loaded. The filtering caveat follows efficiently. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 single-parameter read with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the definition covers the essential behavior including the exclusion rule. It stops short of describing the shape or ordering of the returned audit stream, which an agent might want given the absence of an output schema.

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 0% for the single required taskId parameter, so the burden falls on the description, which never mentions the parameter. While taskId is fairly self-evident by name, the description adds no semantics such as accepted ID format or scope, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (task audit stream), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like workflow_complete_task or workflow_submit_artifact. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named workflow_get_task_context. Clear purpose, but no sibling differentiation.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name any alternative such as workflow_get_task_context or workflow_get_related_artifacts. An agent must infer when an audit stream is the right resource to request.

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