zda_audit_logs_for_object

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of transparency. It declares the tool is 'Read-only' and requires Enterprise, which is good. However, it lacks details about response format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence covers purpose, read-only nature, and requirement; second sentence provides a relatable use case. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains. It does not describe the events' structure, limiting the agent's ability to interpret results. Adequate for a simple read operation but incomplete for full context.

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%; the description only reiterates the schema's parameter examples ('trigger', 'automation') without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already sufficiently documents the parameters.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'audit-log events for a specific object', and the method of specifying via source_type and source_id. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'zda_audit_logs' by being object-specific and provides a concrete use case ('did my change land').

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires Zendesk Enterprise' and gives a contextual usage hint ('natural lookup after change'). It implicitly differentiates from general audit logs but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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