output_enforcer_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not specify if the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes a violation. The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, using a clear structure with a one-line summary followed by an Args section listing each parameter. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant 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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, output schema exists). The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format, limits, or behavior when no violations are found. It is adequate but not fully complete given the availability of an output schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: tool_name (optional, empty returns all) and hours (default 24). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, clarifying defaults and filtering behavior.

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 retrieves recent validation violations with optional filtering by tool name and time window. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'output_enforcer_breakers' (likely different violation types) and 'output_enforcer_status' (status). However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a list, which would enhance clarity.

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 gives a clear context (validation violations) and mentions filtering options, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'output_enforcer_clear' or 'output_enforcer_breakers'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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