Get Governance Capability Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a scope limitation: the summary is not the full audit log and that requires the REST endpoint. It still omits whether the result is scoped by the 'days' window or what is excluded from the summary.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the limitation placed second. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema the description is largely adequate, and the REST-endpoint caveat usefully signals partial coverage. The gap is that the only parameter's meaning and effect are unexplained, which is exactly what an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'days' parameter, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and does not meet it. It never mentions the parameter, the default of 7, or whether days narrows the audit window or the capability list, leaving an agent to guess from the name alone.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Return a governance capability summary') and enumerates the content returned: supported tools, frameworks, and attack vectors. It is not, however, differentiated from near-siblings like rai_executive_summary or rai_org_status, which an agent could plausibly choose instead.

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 sentence about full audit log access requiring the REST endpoint is a useful boundary (when this tool is not sufficient), but the description never says when to prefer this summary over rai_executive_summary or rai_org_status, nor names any alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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