safe_audit_direct_session

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

The description discloses that the output is 'bounded structured evidence' and explicitly excludes 'verification stdout/stderr tails', which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not clarify potential side effects, especially since readOnlyHint is false, leaving some ambiguity about whether the audit has any mutable impact.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and output constraints. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough contextual detail about the scope and return format. The mention of 'bounded structured evidence' and 'without verification stdout/stderr tails' helps set expectations, despite not enumerating the evidence groups.

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 100% for both parameters (session_id and max_items), and their descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Audit') and target resource ('Direct session'), and clearly states the output scope ('only bounded structured evidence without verification stdout/stderr tails'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_session or safe_audit by emphasizing the exclusion of verification tails.

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 phrase 'without verification stdout/stderr tails' implies a use case where such tails are not needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus others. Usage context is implied rather than directly articulated.

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