gograph_session_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns 'audited session details and grade' and clarifies the effect of the 'json' parameter (structured JSON vs. human-readable ASCII). It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise—three short lines covering purpose, prerequisites, usage, and returns. It uses clear headers ('WHEN TO USE:', 'RETURNS:') and avoids any unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately states the return type ('audited session details and grade'). For a tool with two optional parameters, this is nearly sufficient. However, it could benefit from briefly listing what the grade or details include, but the current level is adequate for an agent.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains that leaving session_id empty audits the most recent session, and it clarifies that setting json=true returns structured JSON instead of human-readable ASCII. These details go beyond the schema descriptions, fully equipping the agent to use the parameters correctly.

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 reviews and grades agent compliance and tool success rates. It specifies the resource (agent compliance, tool success rates) and action (review/grade). The name 'session_audit' aligns with this purpose, differentiating it from siblings like 'session_create' or 'session_end'.

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 explicitly includes 'WHEN TO USE: After ending a session' and states 'No prerequisites.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools, which would have been helpful.

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