list_rejected_detections

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output includes the evidence found missing, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether any state is changed, or mention permissions or rate limits. This is a minimal viable level of transparency for a list operation.

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 highly concise: two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the tool's primary action, and the second paragraph adds relevant audit context. No unnecessary words or repetitive details.

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 description explains the tool's purpose and provides useful audit context, but it completely omits any explanation of the sole parameter (video_id). Since the output schema exists, return values are documented, but the input parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. This makes the tool incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only one parameter, video_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention video_id at all, so an agent has no idea that the parameter exists or how it filters results. This is a critical gap; the description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 a specific verb and resource: 'List detections the verifier rejected, with the evidence it found missing.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processed_videos and list_alerts, which likely list different entities. The inclusion of 'with the evidence it found missing' further clarifies the tool's unique output.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for auditing whether the system is suppressing real hazards.' It gives context on when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is more than implied usage but lacks the explicit exclusions that would merit a 5.

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