phabricator_audit_query

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the endpoint is frozen/legacy and mentions the availability of audit-specific status filtering. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior or potential limitations of the legacy endpoint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a key differentiator. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format. However, the tool's purpose is clear, and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the essential behavioral differences from the modern API.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it reinforces that status filtering is a key feature.

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 it searches commit audit requests using the legacy audit.query endpoint, and distinguishes it from phabricator_commit_search by highlighting that this endpoint provides audit-specific status filtering not available in the modern API.

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?

Explicitly advises using phabricator_commit_search for most use cases, and explains when to use this endpoint (when audit-specific status filtering is needed).

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