omega_brain_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output as a formatted text report with sections, implying it is a read-only operation. It does not disclose any potential side effects or required permissions, but the behavior is reasonably transparent for an audit report generator.

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 compact two sentences: first states purpose and contents, second gives usage guidance and output structure. No superfluous words, every sentence valuable.

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 has one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and what the output contains. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 input schema has one parameter with description already covering range and default. The description does not add additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a human-readable audit report with specific contents (SEAL chain entries, Cortex verdicts, vault statistics). The verb 'generates' and resource 'audit report' are specific. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'omega_brain_status' by mentioning it's for a quick health summary instead.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to inspect the trust and governance layer; use omega_brain_status for a quick health summary instead.' This provides clear when to use and when not, with an alternative sibling tool named.

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