token_master_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns an 'audit contract,' which is useful, but it does not describe contract contents, format, or any additional behavioral nuances.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and target resource efficiently.

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?

With no parameters, simple invocation is clear, and annotations cover safety behavior. However, the description leaves 'Token Master' and 'audit contract' undefined, and with no output schema the agent may not know what the returned contract contains or how to interpret it. Some additional context would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to clarify. Schema description coverage is 100%, and the baseline for no parameters is 4; no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('Token Master's read-only audit contract'). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools or define what an 'audit contract' is.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like orchestrator_context or personal_git_snapshot. It implies use for retrieving an audit contract, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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