justhandled_agent_run_evidence_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Costs $0.25 USDC on Base mainnet', which is not inferable from the schema or name. It does not mention side effects, auth, or failure modes, but as an audit tool, this is key context. This disclosure elevates it above baseline.

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: the first clearly states the function, the second states the cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the cost note separate and concise.

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 complexity (6 nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is noticeably incomplete. It explains what inputs are audited but does not describe the report output itself, what a passing/failing result looks like, or any response format. The user is left without crucial information about the tool's return value, making it hard to know what to expect or how to act on the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all six dimensions that map directly to the required parameter names (promise_action, tool_calls, completion, tool_descriptions, skill_activation, costs), adding high-level semantics. However, it does not explain the nested structure or required sub-fields (e.g., 'outcomes' in completion, 'contracts' in tool_calls), so it only partially fills the gap.

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 identifies the resource ('one agent-run packet') along with the exact scope ('promises, tool calls, completion evidence, tool descriptions, skill activation, and cost'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that each handle a single aspect, as it presents a consolidated 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 says 'consolidated report', which implies it is the comprehensive tool for auditing an entire agent-run packet, covering all the dimensions that sibling tools handle individually. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the individual checkers or any exclusions, so it falls 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.