iyke_pkg_violations_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns rows newest-first, only shell.execute denials currently write here, and the limit cap. No destructive actions are implied, but authentication needs are not mentioned, which lowers the score from 5 to 4.

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 dense paragraph with no wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields). It earns its place with high information density.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields (attempted, declared, scope_kind, pkg_id, occurred_at) and explains the scope of data (only shell.execute denials). This is complete for a list 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%, yet the description fully explains both parameters: limit defaults to 100 with a hard cap of 1000, and pkg_id filters to a specific package. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type declarations.

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 lists kernel-level permission-violation audit rows newest-first, specifying the resource (audit rows) and the verb (list). It distinguishes from siblings like iyke_pkg_list by focusing on violations rather than packages.

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 explains when to use pkg_id (filter to one package) and the limit behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context implies it's for auditing specific violations, which is sufficiently clear.

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