audit_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses that the bundle is content-free, covers write and erasure history, requires the INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPTS=1 environment variable, can be verified offline without a key or live store, and returns a dict intended for JSON export. This is far more than a generic 'export audit bundle' statement.

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 dense sentences with every clause earning its place: purpose, scope, offline verification workflow, environment prerequisite, failure mode, and output handling. Key constraints are front-loaded and highlighted, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description is largely complete for an export tool with one optional parameter: it covers what the bundle contains, how it will be used, the environment prerequisite, and how to handle the output. The notable gap is expected_pubkey, which is completely unexplained in both the schema and description, preventing full completeness.

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 explain the single parameter, expected_pubkey. It does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it should be filled, what format it expects, or how it affects the bundle. The parameter name gives only weak inferable meaning, not sufficient operational guidance.

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 states a specific action ('Export'), a precise resource ('portable, CONTENT-FREE audit bundle'), and the full scope ('whole write + erasure history'). It also cites EU AI Act Art. 12/19 and distinguishes the artifact from related audit/report tools by emphasizing that it is content-free and verified offline via verify_audit_bundle.

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 gives clear operational context: export the bundle, have an auditor verify it offline with verify_audit_bundle, and save the returned dict as JSON. It also states a necessary prerequisite (INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPTS=1) and the consequence of missing it. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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