operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important trait that no recovery writes are dispatched, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about permissions, idempotency of reconcile, log volume limits, or what 'evidence' means in practice.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, and the negative constraint is front-loaded rather than buried. Conciseness is fine, but it is concision at the cost of the details an agent needs, which is under-specification rather than elegance.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that gap is excused. But for a three-parameter tool with a required action enum and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the selection logic and identifier semantics completely unaddressed, which is not enough to call it correctly for reconcile or get.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameter at all. The required action enum, request_id, and operation_id are entirely undefined in prose, so an agent cannot tell what to pass for reconcile versus get or list.

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 names two activities (reading full logs, reconciling current evidence) but never maps them to the three action values, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as read or adjust. An agent knows roughly the domain but not which capability belongs to which action.

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 clause 'without dispatching recovery writes' implies an exclusion against a write-path tool, likely adjust, but never names the alternative or states when to choose this versus read or context. It is a hint, not guidance.

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