admin

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by naming actions and their parameters (e.g., 'tamper-evident log with proofs' for get_audit_log). However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or destructive potential, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 highly concise: a brief intro followed by a clear bullet list of five actions. Each entry is a single line with the action name and parenthetical parameters. No extraneous text; easily scannable.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate high-level understanding but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or required action values. It covers the five actions adequately but is not fully self-contained.

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 0%, but the description compensates by linking parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'report_abuse: Report abusive content (deliberation_id, reason)'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, helping the agent map parameters to sub-tasks.

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 lists specific admin and audit actions (report_abuse, get_audit_log, etc.), clearly indicating the tool's domain. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'coordinate' by focusing on administrative tasks. However, it lacks a single verb+resource statement, relying on an enumeration.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for admin/audit tasks but does not state when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools.

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