safe_audit_direct_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output is 'bounded structured evidence' and excludes 'verification stdout/stderr tails', which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not state read-only nature, side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word contributes to purpose and constraints.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. 'Structured evidence' is vague. For a simple 2-param tool, it is partially complete but leaves ambiguity about what 'bounded structured evidence' entails.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; the term 'bounded' loosely relates to max_items but is not explicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Audit a Direct session' (specific verb+resource) and adds distinguishing constraints: 'return only bounded structured evidence without verification stdout/stderr tails'. This differentiates it from sibling audit tools like 'audit_session' or 'safe_audit'.

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 usage when structured, bounded evidence is needed (vs. full tails), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are named as alternatives.

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