audit_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a strong job: it discloses the content-free nature, the history scope, the environment variable requirement, the default pubkey behavior, and the returned dict. It does not explicitly state whether the call is safe/read-only or what permissions are needed, but 'export' and 'content-free' strongly imply a non-destructive audit operation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, verification pairing, environment prerequisite, output handling, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundant prose.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation concerns: what is exported, how the result is verified, a required environment variable, and the output format. It could additionally state side effects/permissions or describe the returned bundle's structure, but the agent has enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains the only parameter: expected_pubkey is optional hex, pins governance.proof to the expected receipt-signing key, and defaults to INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPT_PUBKEY. This goes beyond what the bare schema provides and is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a portable, CONTENT-FREE audit bundle of this store's whole write + erasure history.' It clearly differentiates this tool from verify_audit_bundle by explaining that an auditor verifies the bundle offline, making the export purpose unambiguous.

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 context: use this tool to produce a portable audit bundle for offline verification with verify_audit_bundle, and sets a prerequisite (INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPTS=1). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative audit-export tools among the many siblings, but the intended workflow is understandable.

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