governor_log

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Devuelve el registro') but doesn't explicitly state it is non-destructive, mention auth requirements, or rate limits. For a read-only tool, disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single sentence conveys the purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, though it is slightly long. Efficient for a simple 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?

Given the tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema) and siblings suggest a log/read context, the description sufficiently explains the return content. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or limits, but these are unlikely critical.

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% (one parameter with description). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.

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 returns an auditable record of Governor decisions with specific metrics (total, approved, escalated, braked, USD protected). It distinguishes from siblings (evaluate, reset) by focusing on logging and metrics.

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 retrieving logs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (evaluate, reset) or any prerequisites. Sibling differentiation is inferential.

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