IvedaAI: AuditTrail

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining the response JSON structure ('status' is HTTP status, 'truncated'/'timedOut' flag cut-off) and listing required fields for POST (action, message, objectType). No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense, with a structured presentation of the two operations and their parameters. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description explains the response JSON envelope and notes that ivedaai_get_schema should be used for all fields. It covers both operations with their parameters, though it could detail the actual data response structure further.

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 description provides detailed parameter semantics: query parameters with types (offset, page, etc.), the required start/end parameters, enum values for action, and the AuditTrailRequest body with required fields. This goes beyond the generic schema, which only has generic body/query/operation.

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 identifies 'AuditTrail operations' and specifies 'GET /api/auditTrails — Find audit trails' and 'POST /api/auditTrails — create audit trails', using specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but it clearly describes the operations for audit trails, implying usage for audit-related tasks. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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