Query TOCA Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds 'immutable' and 'authenticated tenant boundary', which slightly enhance understanding of behavior but do not contradict annotations. Minimal extra value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action, resource, and boundary condition. It is well front-loaded with the verb and object, no filler words, and efficiently conveys the essential 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 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers only the correlationId purpose implicitly through 'by correlation'. It omits the meaning of 'limit' (pagination/size) and 'executionId' (execution-scoped filtering). With no output schema, the description should at least clarify parameter usage; it does not. The minimal detail leaves the agent uncertain about how to effectively query the audit ledger.

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. It only mentions 'by correlation' which clarifies correlationId's purpose, but entirely omits the role of 'limit' and 'executionId'. The description fails to explain how these parameters influence the query, leaving agent with insufficient guidance for constructing calls.

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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('immutable audit-ledger records'), and defines the scope ('inside the authenticated tenant boundary'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from siblings like toca.workflow.get or toca.event.get, which are not about audit records.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative query tools, nor any mention of exclusions or conditions. While the tenant boundary is a scope constraint, it does not help an agent choose between this and sibling tools like toca.capabilities.search or toca.event.get. The description lacks practical usage context.

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