List My Audit Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope constraint 'current authenticated user' and mentions optional filters, which provides some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other limitations.

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 front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description could have explained the return format or typical usage. It also fails to provide context for choosing this tool among the many audit-related siblings. Despite having well-documented parameters, the overall description leaves the agent without crucial context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optional filters' adds no specific meaning beyond the schema, as each parameter already has a clear description. There is no additional semantic augmentation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'audit logs', with a specific scope 'for the current authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like lyzr_list_org_audit_logs, which operate at the org level, and lyzr_list_user_audit_logs, which may refer to other users.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many audit-related siblings (e.g., lyzr_list_org_audit_logs, lyzr_list_resource_audit_logs, lyzr_get_audit_log). The description lacks any mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which scope is intended.

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