supersession_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The word 'view' and 'ledger' imply a read-only report, and the mention of an 'append-only-plus-supersession store' adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects, output format, or access requirements.

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 a single sentence and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the closing phrase 'that a plain vector store cannot' is more promotional than operational and adds unnecessary length without aiding tool selection.

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 no-argument report tool, the core purpose is communicated, but the description omits what the report output looks like and how it relates to sibling audit/history tools. An agent can invoke it, but may not choose it correctly among the many report-like siblings without more context.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies given no-parameter design.

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The description identifies the tool as a 'correction ledger' reporting which facts have been superseded/reverted by key, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from a plain vector store's capability, though it doesn't directly differentiate from sibling report tools like history, as_of, or 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as history, as_of, contradictions, or audit_bundle. The description explains the conceptual value proposition but does not state invocation conditions or exclusions.

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