Runtime Correlation

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds context about producing risk-amplified findings, requiring a proxy audit log, and returning correlated data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage notes, and return description. It is not overly verbose, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'proxy audit log' mentioned multiple times).

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 (correlating scan results with audit logs, optional OTel trace), the description covers requirements, inputs, outputs, and edge cases (absence of audit log). Output schema exists, so return values need not be fully detailed, but a brief overview is provided.

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 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., that audit_log is generated with --log flag), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 cross-references vulnerability scan results with proxy audit logs to identify which vulnerable tools were actually called in production, distinguishing confirmed attack surface from theoretical risk. This is specific and differentiates from siblings.

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 specifies prerequisites (requires a proxy audit log generated by 'agent-bom proxy --log') and explains behavior without it ('returns scan results only'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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