fossa_export_audit_logs

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly warns 'WRITES TO FOSSA. Requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true.', explains that it creates a background job and emails audit history, and notes it is gated as a POST. This aligns with readOnlyHint:false and adds detail about side effects and prerequisites.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains three short paragraphs, but there is minor redundancy between 'WRITES TO FOSSA' and 'gated like any other POST'. Overall, every sentence adds useful context.

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?

With six parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool description covers the main behavior and caveats (write gating, email delivery, date format) but omits explanations for the optional filter parameters. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable, but the parameter gap prevents full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies date format and requiredness for start_date and end_date. The optional parameters (topics, actions, topic_actions, acting_user_ids) remain unexplained, leaving ambiguity about acceptable values and filtering behavior.

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 a specific action ('Queue a CSV export of the audit log for a date range') and the delivery method (email link to the calling token's user). It is distinguishable from siblings like fossa_get_audit_logs by the export and email aspect.

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 implies when to use this tool (when an emailed CSV export of audit logs is needed) and provides necessary context like required date format and premium subscription. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as fossa_get_audit_logs, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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