sassy_audit_false_positives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output row format (timestamp | event | pattern | command truncated), the 'newest last' ordering, and the exact semantics of include_bypasses for blocks versus pattern_bypass entries. It doesn't explicitly say 'read-only', but 'Show'/'audit' strongly implies no side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a compact use-case sentence, an output-format line, and two focused parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, this description covers purpose, output fields, ordering, parameter behavior, and the intended audit use case. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: count is explained as max rows to return with newest-last ordering, and include_bypasses is described in terms of the real behavioral difference between blocks and bypasses, including why the bypass view is useful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show recent shell-interceptor pattern matches (blocks + bypasses).' It also says it surfaces noisy-pattern events you'd otherwise have to grep for, which clearly distinguishes it from the audit_log/audit_search/audit_clear 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 provides clear context: this tool is for surfacing shell-interceptor false positives and auditing what allow_pattern has let through. It explains when to set include_bypasses, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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