list_audits

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The word 'list' conveys a read-only operation and 'all saved' signals no filtering, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or side effects, though the output schema may cover the return shape.

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 that states exactly what the tool does without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, this description is largely complete: it names the resource, the operation, and the scope. It only falls short in not pointing the agent to get_audit for single-audit scenarios, which is a minor gap given the sibling list.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately requires no additional param details.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and identifies the exact resource ('saved automation audits'), adding a scope marker ('all') that distinguishes it from the sibling get_audit, which implies retrieving a single audit. This is unambiguous and directly tells an agent what the tool returns.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs a collection of all saved audits, but it does not explicitly state when it should not be used or name get_audit as the alternative for a single audit. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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