edgegate_get_byo_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses the append-only nature, the specific event types logged, the pagination mechanism, the join-key field (aws_request_id), and the admin role requirement. This goes well beyond a basic 'fetch' statement.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the resource and scope, the second covers filters/pagination, and the third provides the join key and permission requirement. No filler, well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains what the log contains, how to filter and paginate, and what to do with each row's aws_request_id. It does not describe the exact row structure or error cases, but for a fetch-log tool this is sufficient.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explicitly mapping filters (artifact_id, run_id, since) and cursor pagination to the parameters, and it introduces the output-level aws_request_id join key, which is not in the schema. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource: the workspace's append-only BYO storage audit log, enumerating the event types included. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edgegate_get_audit_report, which likely covers a different audit domain.

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 retrieving BYO storage audit events with optional filters and cursor pagination. It also notes the admin role requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which is a minor gap given similar audit tools exist.

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