list_recent_escalations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns events but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format/structure of the returned data. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, audit log querying), the description adequately states what it does. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral traits, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters (limit and category). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the significance of categories or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('recent escalation events from the audit log'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_message_safety' or 'get_session_risk', which appear to serve different functions (safety checking and risk assessment rather than audit log retrieval).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and parameters alone.

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