output_enforcer_violations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'recent' and filtering adds context. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations (e.g., maximum number of results, pagination, or auth requirements), which prevents a higher score.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and then hints at optional parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description adequately covers the essentials. It could mention the relationship to sibling tools or clarify that the time window is in hours, but the schema supplies those details, so 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 description simply reiterates the filtering behavior already captured in the schema ('Filter by tool name and time window'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('recent validation violations'), making the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like output_enforcer_status and output_enforcer_clear by focusing on violations specifically.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want recent validation violations) and mentions filtering options, but it does not explicitly contrast it against sibling tools or state exclusions (e.g., 'for status use output_enforcer_status'). This is adequate but not explicit.

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