audit_my_agent_inventory

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a significant behavioral limitation (cannot auto-discover the inventory) and mentions the signed receipt as output. It avoids contradictions and adds concrete context beyond the basic action, though it does not discuss permissions or 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 two sentences, with the action front-loaded and every clause earning its place. It conveys purpose, output, and a critical limitation in a tight, efficient structure.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, input, output, and the main limitation for a tool with only one required parameter. The tool is simple enough that this description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the core 'inventory' parameter as a 'CALLER-PROVIDED list of MCP tools'. The optional 'notes' parameter is not described, but its meaning is evident from the name. The description effectively clarifies the primary parameter.

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 ('Rank') and a clear resource ('CALLER-PROVIDED list of MCP tools'), with the ranking criterion ('by worst-regret if they act') and output ('with a signed receipt'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on receipts, verification, or gating by focusing on inventory audit.

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 explicitly states a key prerequisite: the caller must provide the inventory because auto-discovery is not possible in MCP. While it does not name alternatives, this constraint clearly communicates the expected usage context and necessary input, making it more than implied.

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