github_audit_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a safe read operation (aggregate/show) and mentions no side effects, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. The session dependency is implied but not clarified.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first defines the core action, second highlights key outputs. No redundant words; information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level idea of outputs ('critical findings, top remediation actions'). However, it fails to explicitly state that it depends on a prior session of findings from other tools, which is critical context for proper use.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; the description needs no additional parameter details and adds no contradictions.

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 uses specific verbs 'Aggregate' and 'Shows' with the resource 'findings from the current session', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_audit_report or individual check tools. It details the aggregation dimensions (category, severity, status) and outputs (critical findings, top remediation actions).

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 the tool should be used after running checks (since it aggregates findings from a session), but it does not explicitly say when to use it or mention alternatives like github_audit_report. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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