Журнал действий

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: read actions are never recorded, actions performed by an access token are attributed to that specific token, and audit.view permission is required. These traits are not inferable from the annotations or schema alone.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information: content scope, the 'who did it' angle, token attribution, read exclusion, and permission requirement. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is logged, what is not logged, token attribution, and permission needs. The schema handles parameter semantics, so nothing critical is missing.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the schema already documents case, limit, action, and offset. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the general 'case' context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists an audit/action log for a case, covering edits, additions, deletions, and permission grants, and answers 'who did it.' This is specific and the scope is evident, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like bots_journal or dialogs_history.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: to determine who performed changes in a case. It also provides a useful exclusion—read operations are not logged—and warns about the required audit.view permission. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of another.

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