audit_export_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action and format. It does not mention whether parameters are required, whether the report is returned or saved, whether it is a read-only operation, or any side effects. This leaves key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core purpose, making it appropriately concise and easy to scan.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how the two optional parameters are used, what the output contains, or when the tool is appropriate. For a simple tool this might be minimally viable, but the missing parameter guidance and usage context make it insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The text mentions 'audit events' and 'tracking timeline', which weakly map to eventId and traceId, but it never explicitly says which parameter corresponds to which entity or that either is optional. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 exports audit events or trace timelines into a Markdown report, with a specific verb ('导出' / export), resource, and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_start_trace and audit_get_trail, which handle trace lifecycle and retrieval.

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 only says '按需' (on demand), providing no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_get_trail, nor does it explain how to choose between eventId and traceId. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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