swsd_get_record_audits

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the structure of audit entries and mentioning the cost advantage over the alternate tool. No contradictions with 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 five sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding details. It is concise with no unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the audit entry fields.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and full input schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter hints, and cost comparison. It doesn't discuss error handling or rate limits, but the annotations cover idempotency and open-world behavior. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions the object_type list in prose and adds a note about per_page default being sufficient for recent activity. However, the id parameter explanation is already in the schema description, so added value is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 audit logs for SWSD records, specifies the content of each entry (action, message, user, timestamp), and distinguishes from sibling tool swsd_get_incident by noting it's cheaper for audit-only needs.

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 context for when to use ('who changed this ticket?', 'what happened since I last looked?') and explicitly mentions that it's cheaper than swsd_get_incident with detail_level=long for audit history, offering guidance on choosing between tools. However, it doesn't specify when not to use the tool or prerequisites like record existence.

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