audit_record_event

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects like appending to a trace, potential failure if the trace doesn't exist, or whether an acknowledgment is returned. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects.

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 delivers its core purpose without filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and all words contribute meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

This is a write tool with six parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides no information about return values, failure modes, or the operational context (e.g., trace lifecycle). It is severely under-specified for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% schema coverage—it doesn't mention any of the six parameters. The schema provides types and enums (e.g., phase, level) but no semantic explanations. The tool name and description give no hints about what traceId, phase, or message mean in context, so parameters remain unexplained.

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 '向指定追踪会话记录一条行为事件' clearly states the tool records a behavior event into a specified trace session, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start/end/get/export trace operations. The verb '记录' and resource '追踪会话' provide specific action and target, though it doesn't elaborate on what '行为事件' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_start_trace or audit_get_trail. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active trace) or scenarios where recording an event is appropriate.

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