agenta_audit_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this writes a file to disk (a side effect that fires by default given download=true), what permissions are needed, or what happens when no report exists. Only the conditional 'once it exists' adds any behavioral context.

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 text is brief and front-loaded, but it succeeds by omission rather than concision: the missing verb makes the sentence ungrammatical and ambiguous, which is under-specification rather than economy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the tool's read-and-download behavior, but it leaves the core question open (what audit state is returned, and is the download an unavoidable side effect). The fully covered two-parameter schema keeps this from being worse than merely inadequate.

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 100%, so both parameters (output, download) are already fully documented in the schema, including the default path and the terminal-vs-tool-call distinction. The description adds nothing beyond restating the download condition, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment names resources ('audit state', 'report PDF') but omits its primary verb, so it's unclear whether it retrieves state, downloads a file, or does both. It does not distinguish itself from the obvious sibling agenta_audit_request or the adjacent agenta_status_get, leaving the agent to guess.

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 phrase 'once it exists' hints that a prior audit must have been requested, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of agenta_audit_request as the precursor or of how this differs from agenta_status_get.

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