sac_export_audit_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It omits behavioral details such as whether the export is non-destructive, pagination behavior despite pageSize/pageNumber parameters, output format, or any side effects. The term 'export' is used without clarification of the result format (e.g., file, stream).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, and whether the export is synchronous or asynchronous. It also does not mention required permissions or authentication needs, which is critical for an export tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor reinforcement by mentioning date range and activity type, but does not elaborate on pagination parameters (pageSize, pageNumber) beyond what schema already provides.

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 it exports audit/login activities with filtering by date range and activity type. It distinguishes the tool's export action from sibling tools like sac_read_audit_data, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 says 'Useful for compliance and monitoring,' implying when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like sac_read_audit_data.

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