audit_get_trail

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is safe, does not modify the trace session, or explain the return format, ordering, or error behavior. It adds no information beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it well-structured for its length.

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?

The tool has a moderate parameter set (4 params, 2 enums), no output schema, and no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining sufficient context. It does not describe what the audit event list contains, how the filter parameters interact, or what the response structure is, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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?

The description adds meaning only to traceId by referring to a 'specified trace session', but does not explain the purpose of 'level', 'limit', or 'phase' filters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance, leaving the agent to guess how to use these additional parameters.

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 event list for a specified trace session, using the specific verb 'query' and identifying both the resource (audit event list) and scope (specified trace session). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools that start traces, record events, end traces, or export reports.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an active trace session, nor does it suggest using audit_export_report for different reporting needs. The usage context is only implied by the semantics of 'querying a trace session.'

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