wafle_system_audit_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds behavioral context by explaining the filtering dimensions (store, actor type, endpoint, date range) and the forensic use case. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences. The first states the core purpose and filters; the second gives concrete use examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the key filters, and example queries. Pagination behavior is implied through page/per_page schema defaults but not explicitly described, and the return format is not specified, though that may be acceptable for a simple list query.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the purpose of store_id, actor_type, endpoint, and date range (from_ts/to_ts). However, actor_type is described as '(master/store)' while the enum includes 'system' as well, which is an incomplete and slightly misleading characterization. Page/per_page already have schema descriptions, so they don't need extra explanation.

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 queries the audit log ('who called what, when'), specifies the resource (audit log), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique focus on audit forensics. The verb 'Query' is specific and accurate.

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 explicit use cases for forensics ('who refunded order 87?', 'who toggled gateway 65 inactive?'), which gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or situations where the tool should not be used, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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