list_audit_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which cover safety and multivalue return. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, sorting, or default filters). It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance understanding.

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 a single sentence of 5 words, efficiently conveying the purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriate for such a 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?

Despite annotations and schema covering parameters, the description lacks output structure information. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned audit results look like, their order, or pagination behavior. This is incomplete for an AI agent to fully utilize.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no extra meaning. The schema clearly documents limit, state, and severity 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 clearly states the tool lists audit results and findings, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from other list tools like list_incidents or list_approvals, which may cause confusion among the many 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a long list of sibling tools including many list_* and search_* tools, the AI is left without context on when to choose list_audit_results.

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