read_mcp_audit_file

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: it discloses the directory restriction (Saved/MCPAudits/) and confirms the operation returns the full parsed JSON rather than a summary. It stops short of noting failure modes for an invalid path.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the workflow rationale, then the scope restriction and return value. Three tight segments, no filler, and the most important constraint (not a general file reader) is preserved in the scope sentence.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description still states what is returned ('the full parsed JSON report object'), covers scope and restrictions, and links to the producing sibling commands. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (path and its asset_path alias) are fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'the path' indirectly via the audit-command workflow, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Read back') and a precisely scoped resource (the FULL report written by audit_* or capture_pie_state commands). It explicitly positions itself relative to siblings by naming the command family whose output it recovers, so an agent can tell it apart from a general file reader.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (the second half of every audit_*/capture_pie_state call) and when-not-to-use (it is not a general file reader). It also explains the workflow rationale — those commands return only a summary plus a path, so detail requires this tool.

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