get_audit_trail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the audit trail as 'append-only' and details the content (events with timestamps and actor attribution), effectively conveying the tool's read-only, immutable nature.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. Conveys all necessary information efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return content (events with timestamps and actor attribution). Slightly more detail on structure could improve it, but it 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?

Only one parameter, envelopeId (UUID), is self-explanatory from the schema. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. Score maintains baseline as parameter is simple.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'append-only audit trail for an envelope', explicitly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'get_envelope' which returns the envelope itself.

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 when-to-use or alternatives, but the context of retrieval is clear from the description. Lacks guidance on prerequisites or distinctions from similar tools like 'get_envelope', but it's not misleading.

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