get_governance_summary

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

With no annotations, the description shows it is a read-only summary returning specific aggregates. It does not mention permissions or errors, but adequately discloses the output and purpose.

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?

Two sentences, bolded title for quick scanning, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete for a health check tool. It might benefit from stating it's a high-level overview, but the use case is clear.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description adds full meaning by detailing what the tool returns (risk levels, active tools, CRITICAL_TAG events). Schema coverage is 100% and description compensates completely.

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 it returns aggregate statistics from governance event log: total calls by risk level, most active tools, and CRITICAL_TAG events. It distinguishes from siblings like list_governance_events by being a summary, fulfilling specific verb+resource.

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 explicitly says 'Use as a quick health check' and mentions ADMIN attention for gaps, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings but the context of aggregate vs. detailed is implied.

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