mhangani_trend

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

The description implies a read-only operation through the verb 'show', but with no annotations, it does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, pagination, or any rate limits. The basic intent is clear, but additional transparency is limited.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it highly concise. However, it is somewhat under-specified, so while it is concise, it could benefit from more detail.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values are likely covered, but the description lacks context about what 'posture score' refers to, how 'trend' is computed, and how it fits with sibling tools. The audit history scope is also unclear. For a tool in a larger suite, this is insufficient.

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 one parameter 'limit' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the effect of 'limit' ambiguous.

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 'show' and identifies the resource 'posture score' and context 'audit history'. It clearly indicates the tool's function, but does not explicitly differentiate from mhangani_history, which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mhangani_report or mhangani_history. The description lacks any context about use cases or prerequisites.

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