Prove that a query event is NOT a member of a previously-built audit window (C13). Reference-grade implementation. Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Event to prove absent | |
| window_id | Yes | Audit window identifier (must have been built) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'Wire format normative' which are cryptic and do not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the window does not exist, or any error/edge-case behavior. No side effects, auth needs, or rate limits are described.
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 brief (two sentences) but includes unexplained jargon ('C13', 'Layer B') and redundant qualifiers ('Reference-grade implementation', 'Wire format normative') that may confuse rather than inform. It is compact but not optimally clear.
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 complex sibling toolset and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how this tool relates to attest_absence_build/verify, what the expected output or return value is, or how to handle prerequisite failures. The cryptic references assume domain knowledge not provided.
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 is 100%: both parameters (window_id and query) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?
The description specifies the verb 'prove' and the resource 'audit window' with a clear outcome: proving non-membership of a query event. This distinguishes it from siblings like attest_absence_build and attest_absence_verify. However, the unexplained references 'C13' and 'Layer B' introduce ambiguity, preventing a perfect score.
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 window must be 'previously-built' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as attest_absence_verify or attest_absence_build. There are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit build requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.