audit_tracking

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about audit threshold configuration and defines the operational semantics of 'due' vs 'overdue', going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted operations, and a brief note on configuration. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the content is front-loaded with the tool's function.

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 tool's simplicity, annotations (safe read operation), and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, operation semantics, and configuration context. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for parameter descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description enriches the 'action' enum by explaining what each value (due, overdue, summary) actually computes, adding value beyond the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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 tracks asset audit status for compliance, with explicit operation modes (due, overdue, summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on audit-specific reporting rather than general asset management or status reporting.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for audit tracking) and enumerates the three available actions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance, but the usage context is well implied.

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