mandate_breaches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it signals read-only determinism ('Read from the entries as written; nothing is re-judged or inferred') and explains that mandates cannot be widened over MCP and how tool calls are recorded. It omits auth, pagination, and error behavior, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 opening sentence is a dense run-on that lists all outputs at once, harming readability. It is front-loaded with purpose and later sentences add useful context, but the lack of structure and verbosity cost it.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover more, yet it omits parameter semantics entirely. It describes the returned content well but leaves an agent without the information needed to filter or bound the query 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?

The schema has two parameters (actor, since) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions them. An agent cannot know that actor filters by actor or that since bounds the time range, leaving the parameters completely undocumented.

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 it returns every recorded action outside the declared mandate, oldest first, with reasons, counts, and mandate declarations. The resource and scope are specific, though the sentence lacks a direct verb and does not differentiate from siblings like breach_report.

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?

Provides context about how mandates are declared and recorded but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not route the agent among the many sibling audit and report tools, leaving selection to inference.

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