AgentSeal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool is for looking up actions from an audit trail, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides context for when to use it, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly mentioning it's a query tool upfront.

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 complexity of querying an audit trail with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, pagination, error cases, or security requirements. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to interact with this tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for each parameter (agent_id, action_type, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Look up previously recorded actions from the audit trail.' It specifies the verb ('look up') and resource ('actions from the audit trail'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_action' or 'verify_chain' beyond implying it's for retrieval rather than recording or verification.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this to check what actions have been taken, verify history, or recall past decisions,' which suggests contexts for application. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_chain' or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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