List Session Audit Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal extra context: it confirms the scope is a single session ID. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the session must exist, which are useful behavioral details. With strong annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still adds some value.

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, 'Get audit logs for a specific session ID.' It is extremely concise, with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

Despite the concise description, the tool is simple and the schema plus annotations provide substantial context. The 100% parameter documentation and readOnly/idempotent hints cover the essential details. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on how this relates to other audit list tools, but that falls under usage guidelines. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete, though a brief note on return format would have made it fully complete.

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%, with each parameter (session_id, limit, offset) having a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies. It does reinforce that session_id is the key filter, but that is already in the schema.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('audit logs for a specific session ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling audit log tools like lyzr_list_org_audit_logs or lyzr_list_user_audit_logs by emphasizing the session-scoped focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling audit log tools (e.g., org, user, resource-level logs). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case from the session-specific wording alone.

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