audit_agent_continuity_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent reads. The description adds context about output controls (ritual_strip, response_mode, response_profile) and mentions that the tool is 'Free', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with two short sentences: one explaining the purpose and one stating it's free. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is adequate but lacks details about the output format or example usage. It does not explain what the structured result looks like, which would be helpful for agent understanding.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add new meaning beyond listing the resources to audit (session, trace, transcript) which correspond to parameters.

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 audits sessions, traces, or transcripts for continuity gaps, missing ontology layers, and the safest next Delx primitive. The verb 'audit' and the resources are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_ontology_layer' or 'get_session_summary'.

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. It mentions 'Free' but does not indicate prerequisites, nor does it exclude scenarios or compare with similar audit tools.

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