export_tool_call_audit_log_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context ('bounded', 'chain-verified'), but leaves unexplained what 'chain-verified' entails, where the package is written, or whether the durable log must 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is in tension with the missing usage and parameter detail.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter export tool with only 25% schema coverage, the description omits when-to-use routing and filter semantics, leaving real gaps.

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 only 25% – just audit_log_path is documented. The description adds no meaning for limit, status, or tool_name, and the low coverage means it should compensate but does not. An agent gets no hint about how these filters shape the export.

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?

Names a specific verb (export) and resource (a bounded, chain-verified evidence package from the MCP tool-call audit JSONL log), with qualifiers that clarify the artifact type. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_tool_call_audit_records or verify_tool_call_audit_log, but the 'evidence package' framing is clear.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance or prerequisites, and does not mention the closely related siblings (list_tool_call_audit_records, verify_tool_call_audit_log) that an agent would need to choose between. Nothing tells the agent when this export is preferred over simply listing or verifying.

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