audit_session

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Performs 16 deterministic checks' and 'returns pass/warn/fail decision.' While readOnlyHint is false, the description does not claim read-only behavior, so there is no contradiction. It could further clarify side effects, but for an audit tool the added detail is useful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains behavior and prerequisite.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, and prerequisite. It lacks details about the 16 checks or what pass/warn/fail mean, but these are not critical given the simplicity of the tool and existing annotations.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'session_id' with 100% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning by stating the session must be finalized first, which is valuable beyond the schema and helps the agent understand valid input.

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's purpose: 'Independently audit a Direct session's changes' with a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('session's changes'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'audit_task' and 'safe_audit_direct_session' by focusing on Direct sessions and providing a pass/warn/fail decision.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires session to be finalized first.' This gives context on when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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