Отбор журнала действий

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: results include departed participants. It says nothing about result shape, ordering or pagination, so it is only a modest addition.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key qualifiers front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it does not lose points for verbosity.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks any indication of the returned structure (e.g., a list of event types vs. authors with counts). The phrase 'with number of records' hints at it but does not fully compensate for the absent output schema.

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% and the sole 'case' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default-resolution behaviour. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (event types and authors) and adds qualifiers (record counts, includes departed participants), which distinguishes this enumeration/filter tool from the sibling audit_list that returns the journal entries themselves. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the scope is clear from the text.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus audit_list or any other sibling, and no mention of prerequisites or ordering (e.g., call this first to discover valid filter values). Usage must be inferred from the noun phrase alone.

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