get_draft_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an ordered list of audit events with timestamps and actor names, and notes the types of events (submit, approve/reject/schedule/publish). It does not mention permissions, error conditions, or whether it is strictly read-only, but the read-only fetch nature is strongly implied.

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?

Three sentences pack the core function, usage cues, and return value without waste. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description explains the return format and enumerates the event types. Combined with sibling context, it is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (draftId) with a clear description. The tool description itself does not add further parameter-level detail, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 fetches the audit trail for a single draft, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_draft and list_drafts by focusing on audit events rather than content or listing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with real user queries ('what happened to this draft', 'who approved this') and debugging scenarios. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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