zda_audit_logs

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and requires Zendesk Enterprise. With no annotations provided, this adds necessary behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, filtering options, read-only nature, and enterprise requirement. It is missing an explanation of the return format (e.g., the fields in the audit log entries), which would enhance 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description paraphrases the filtering parameters (source_type, actor_id, time window) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema 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 'Read the Zendesk audit log' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering capabilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'zda_audit_logs_for_object', which likely has a similar but more focused purpose.

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 specific use cases: 'verify a change landed or to detect config drift.' It states the tool is read-only, implying safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., when to use zda_audit_logs_for_object).

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