safety_report

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

Discloses that tool shows both blocked and unblocked dangerous actions. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Missing details like whether empty results are possible, but core behavior is clear.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly improved by front-loading key info, but it is concise and readable.

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?

Tool is simple with two optional parameters, but no output schema and no parameter descriptions. While description suffices for basic understanding, it lacks completeness for parameter semantics. Sibling tools are named but not differentiated.

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 description adds no parameter information. The two optional parameters (days, project) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose (e.g., date range vs. project filtering).

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?

Description specifies verb ('reports'), resource ('dangerous actions attempted by agent'), and includes examples (force-push, rm -rf on risky paths, curl|sh, chmod 777). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (audit_summary, cost_summary, efficiency_report) by focusing on safety incidents.

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?

Implied usage: use to review dangerous agent attempts. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like audit_summary or efficiency_report, nor conditions like minimum severity threshold.

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