exceptions_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only via '[READ]' and describes the content type. However, it lacks details on performance, permission requirements, aggregation, or pagination, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise, with a clear header and parameter explanations. The sentence about 'denials prove governance' adds minor fluff but does not detract significantly. Overall, it is well-structured and 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure. The mention of 'enforcement + anomaly evidence' is vague. In the context of 17 sibling tools, more differentiation and completeness regarding output would be beneficial for an agent to select 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'since' and 'until' are ISO timestamps bounding the period, which adds meaningful context. Although more detail on optionality could be provided, this is sufficient for understanding the 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's purpose: reading denied/error/budget-exceeded operations, providing enforcement and anomaly evidence. The prefix '[READ]' explicitly marks it as read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approval_report or query_audit_events which focus on approvals or general audit events.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies use for verifying enforcement via denials. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons with siblings like query_audit_events or coverage_summary.

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