audit_explain

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at creating an audit event (a write operation) but does not explicitly state permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The behavioral impact is only implied.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key outputs. It contains no filler but could be slightly more structured to improve readability.

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?

With no output schema and 4 parameters (3 required), the description lacks details on return value fields, behavior per kind enum, error conditions, and differentiation from 15 siblings. It insufficiently equips an agent 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 input schema already describes all parameters, with descriptions for actor_id, kind, text, and source_name. The description adds value by mentioning 'unknowns' and the audit event structure, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 the tool returns an OES explanation with an audit event including actor, sources, and unknowns. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('OES explanation', 'audit event'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like explain_term or explain_glyph.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like explain_term, explain_glyph, or audit-specific tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are given.

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