List Resource Audit Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations provide, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or what fields are returned. It does not contradict the annotations, but it fails to disclose any additional behavioral traits.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. It contains no unnecessary words and communicates the essential 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?

The tool is relatively straightforward and the schema is comprehensive, but the description does not mention response format or ordering, and the lack of output schema means the agent has no idea what will be returned. With the large sibling toolset, more guidance on when to use this vs. other audit log tools would improve completeness.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description only adds the generic phrase 'with optional filters', which does not deepen understanding of the parameters. Therefore, baseline score of 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 retrieves audit logs for a specific resource type and ID, distinguishing it from sibling audit log tools that operate at org, user, or session scope. The verb 'Get' is slightly less precise than 'List', but the resource type and ID qualifier provides adequate differentiation from siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over lyzr_list_org_audit_logs, lyzr_list_my_audit_logs, or lyzr_list_session_audit_logs. The description simply states what it does without context for selection.

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