audit_export

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting the requirement and that it downloads the full audit log. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., file size, synchronous behavior, rate limits).

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 highly concise: two sentences for purpose, one for requirements, and a clear Args/Returns section. No superfluous information, front-loaded with essential 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?

For a simple export tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, requirement, parameter semantics, and return format. It is mostly complete, though it could mention error conditions (e.g., invalid format or insufficient permissions) and why to choose this over 'audit'.

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 description adds the allowed values ('json', 'csv', 'jsonl') and default for the 'format' parameter, which are absent from the schema (string type without enum). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 exports the full audit log with a specific verb (Export/Downloads) and resource (audit log). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'audit' tool by focusing on downloading the complete trail rather than viewing.

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?

While it mentions a requirement (Pro tier/Novyx Cloud), it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like 'audit' or 'audit_verify'. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with alternatives.

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