audit_business_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact four detection categories and the fact that 'unused' is measured over a 30-day window while 'stale' is measured against stale_days. It stops short of explaining result volume or the max_per_kind cap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the detection list and the kind enumeration. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter audit tool the description is nearly sufficient; the only substantive omission is any explanation of max_per_kind, which at 0% schema coverage is undocumented everywhere.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does well on two of three parameters – enumerating valid kind values and tying stale_days to the 'not modified in stale_days' check – but max_per_kind is never mentioned in either the description or the schema, leaving its purpose and the 500 default undisclosed.

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 (audit) and resource (triggers, automations and macros) plus the goal ('looking for dead rules'), and enumerates the four problem classes it detects. No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose – call it when you want to find dead automation rules – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement. Since none of the sibling tools is a plausible alternative for this task, the lack of routing guidance is a minor but real gap.

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