elliot_reportSummarizes recent verification receipts to show how many claims were checked and how many held up, so users can see what the agent actually did.
Summarise recent receipts: how many claims were checked and how many held up. Show this to the user when they ask what the agent really did.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many recent receipts (default 50). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the report summarises recent receipts and includes counts of checked and upheld claims, which is useful context but not rich behavioral detail such as data range or return format.
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?
Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows naturally.
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 simple read-only summary tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and usage context. It could clarify the scope or meaning of 'recent' beyond the limit parameter, but otherwise it is sufficiently complete.
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 100%, and the sole limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and range. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource: summarising recent receipts, including the metrics 'claims checked' and 'held up'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as elliot_review_packet or the verify_* tools.
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?
It gives a clear usage trigger: show this when the user asks what the agent really did. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative tools, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.