audit_event_inspect

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

With no annotations, the burden falls on the description. It discloses behavioral traits: structural validation (required fields, kind check, payload key list) and a self-consistency check (hash match). This goes beyond a simple 'inspect' and gives the agent clear expectations. No contradictions.

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 one sentence with multiple clauses, but it efficiently conveys the main action and key validations. It is front-loaded ('Pretty-print...') and contains no unnecessary words. Could be slightly clearer by breaking into bullet points.

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 tool's complexity (single param, no output schema, but multiple validation steps), the description covers the input and checks but does not mention the return value format (e.g., pretty-printed string, validation result, or error). This leaves some ambiguity about the output.

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?

The single parameter 'event' is an object with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions fields like hash, kind, payload but does not specify the expected structure or constraints. Some meaning is added, but it is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Pretty-print one GovernanceEvent with structural validation' and lists specific checks (required fields, known/unknown kind, payload key list, self-consistency check). It is specific to GovernanceEvent and distinguishable from sibling tools like ai_evidence_inspect or disclosure_inspect.

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 implies usage for inspecting and validating a single GovernanceEvent but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_event_compose, audit_chain_verify, or other inspect tools). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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