edgegate_get_audit_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a URL (implying a read operation), that the run must be completed, and that the PDF is signed—these are helpful. However, it does not disclose potential URL expiry, permission requirements, or error behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two concise sentences: the first is front-loaded with the action and output, the second adds a clear purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple getter with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function adequately. It notes the prerequisite of a completed run and the compliance context. However, it could improve by clarifying how this differs from similar report-export siblings or whether the URL is ephemeral, so there is slight incompleteness.

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?

Parameter descriptions cover 0% of the schema's properties, and the description does not explain workspace_id or run_id beyond their names. The mention of 'completed run' hints at run_id's role, but no additional meaning is provided. Given the absence of schema descriptions, the tool description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'signed audit report PDF URL' for a completed EdgeGate run, with the intended use case 'compliance records'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report or export_run_report, which are more generic or oriented toward other report types.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool is for completed runs and compliance purposes, implying it should be used when an audit-ready signed PDF is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of 'audit report' and 'compliance records' offers enough guidance relative to the sibling list.

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