query_audit_history

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond schema: ordering (most-recent first) and companion relationship. However, no annotations exist, and the description omits critical details like whether trace_id is optional, default limits, or auth requirements. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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, 18 words, no fluff. The key action and ordering are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover essential parameter details (trace_id and limit) or behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify parameters. It mentions trace_id in backticks but offers no explanation of its semantics, default, or the limit parameter. This is a major deficiency.

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 reads the audit chain for a trace_id as a list of envelopes, most-recent first. It explicitly mentions being a companion to verify_chain_integrity, distinguishing its purpose from related siblings.

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 provides usage context: 'for replay and post-incident review' and implies it is read-only compared to verify_chain_integrity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or cover other siblings like audit_record_decision.

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