audit_get_exec

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses optional raw output inclusion and mentions 'archived raw output', hinting at behavior. Does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple fetch this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by optional behavior. No superfluous words; 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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), description need not detail return values. It covers the core operation and optional behavior. Could mention provenance record structure, but output schema likely covers that.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It mentions 'include a slice of the archived raw output' for include_raw and raw_max, but does not explain raw_max units (e.g., bytes/characters) or the exact format of exec_id.

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?

Description states verb 'Fetch' and resource 'provenance record by exec_id', and ties it to tracing findings to tool executions. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly (e.g., audit_list_execs lists all execs), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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?

Implies use for provenance tracking ('so any finding can be traced'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like audit_list_execs, and no when-not-to-use examples.

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