Metis · Data Guardian — Get Consent Ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior through 'Retrieve' and 'Reads the consent_ledger', but does not explicitly state that no data is modified. It also does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, size of ledger). The behavior is adequately but not exhaustively described.

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: a brief intro, a context sentence, a clear Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loads the key action and resource.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, clear read-only purpose, output description provided), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the parameter role. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 only parameter (limit) has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining its meaning ('Number of most recent ledger rows to return, newest first') and default value (30). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves recent consent events from the audit ledger, specifying the resource (consent events) and action (retrieve). It mentions the source (consent_ledger written by log_consent_event) and the fields returned, providing a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from other 'get' sibling tools beyond linking to its write counterpart.

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 implies usage for reviewing or reporting on sensitive data treatment, providing context. It also notes the relationship with log_consent_event, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to other audit or logging tools are given.

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