Describe Ghost Audit

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying it exposes capabilities, glossary definitions, field meanings, and known limits, which tells the agent what kind of reference information to expect.

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 very short, front-loads the key instruction 'Call first', and then lists the useful content categories without filler. Every element earns its place for a zero-parameter orientation tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly and tells the agent the categories of information returned. It could be slightly more explicit about what the output looks like, but it covers the essential onboarding role.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema fully covers them, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator here. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 identifies this as a first-call orientation tool that provides capabilities, status/phase/operation glossary, field meanings, and known limits. That is clear enough to distinguish it from operational siblings like ghost_get_case or ghost_summary, though it does not explicitly say it 'returns documentation' and relies partly on the title.

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 'Call first' gives explicit usage timing relative to the sibling tools. It does not state when not to use it or name a specific alternative, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives guideline.

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