audit_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists what the summary includes, implying a read-only query operation. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or access requirements. The mention of 'errors' and 'sensitive-path accesses' hints at safety-relevant output but not tool behavior itself.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists key output fields. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan, though it could benefit from a more structured format like bullet points.

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 simple two-parameter input, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description lacks completeness. It only covers the output contents, omitting parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details, which are needed for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'days' or 'project' at all. It provides no meaning or context for these inputs, leaving the agent to guess their purpose based on defaults 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?

The description clearly states the tool's output components (command count, file writes, etc.) and implies it summarizes agent activity. The list differentiates it from sibling tools (cost_summary, efficiency_report, safety_report) by specifying distinct metrics. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve.'

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the output contents alone.

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