mhangani_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a useful detail: 'The JSON output of the CLI is passed through untouched,' which indicates raw passthrough for JSON. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, or what 'exec' format does, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and default format. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings and does not explain 'exec', but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides only a 'format' property with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing the possible values ('JSON (default), Markdown, HTML, or exec') and explicitly calling out the default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on 'exec'.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Render the last audit', and enumerates the supported output formats (JSON, Markdown, HTML, exec). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like mhangani_history or mhangani_trend, which focus on different aspects.

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 is for rendering the last audit, which provides clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it name any exclusions or competing tools.

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