lc_list_audit_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns one bounded page and requires a time window, which adds some behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain pagination behavior (e.g., how cursor works), ordering, rate limits, or what happens with no results. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 with no fluff, which is efficient. However, it omits important details that could be added concisely, such as a note about pagination or filtering. It is under-specified for the complexity of the 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?

Given no output schema and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination (cursor/limit), filtering capabilities, or the return structure. For a list tool, details like pagination behavior and response format are crucial. The description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only implies that 'start' and 'end' define a time window, but does not explain the format, meaning of 'oid', or how 'event_type' and 'sensor_id' filters work. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 org audit logs with a bounded page for a time window. The verb 'list' and resource 'org audit logs' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other resources like cases or sensors. However, the phrase 'bounded page' is somewhat vague and could be clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools, the description does not specify that this is for audit logs or explain when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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