phantom_audit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output content (chronological events with actors, backends, forks) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe to call without side effects. Given the audit focus, it is adequate but could be improved.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences plus an Args line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes essential details without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the tool's output (chronological events with actors, etc.) but does not specify the return format or structure. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by stating 'session_id: Session to audit' beyond the schema's title 'Session Id'. This clearly explains the parameter's role.

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 the tool's purpose as a full forensic audit of a session, listing chronological events with specifics (who, what, when, why) and distinguishes from sibling tools like phantom_sessions (listing sessions) and phantom_fork (managing forks).

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 use for auditing a session but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance like 'use phantom_sessions to find session IDs first'.

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