sassy_audit_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: keyword matching is case-insensitive and line-based, results are newest last, count defaults to 50, and a no-match notice is returned. This gives a clear behavioral picture, though it doesn't mention edge cases like a missing log file.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. The description front-loads the read-only safety signal and core filtering behavior, then efficiently covers use cases, default behavior, and sibling differentiation without fluff.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the target file, matching semantics, ordering, default count, no-match behavior, and intended use cases. Nothing critical is missing for an agent 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well: keyword is described as required and used for case-insensitive per-line matching, and count is described as limiting the result to up to count matching lines with default 50. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema fields, though it doesn't state any maximum or validation constraints.

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 verb and resource: it filters the audit log for a case-insensitive keyword match. It also names the log path, required keyword, and return behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like sassy_audit_log and sassy_audit_false_positives.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use it to trace a specific command, pattern label, or tool name. It also names sibling alternatives with the conditions that select them ('unfiltered recent tail' → sassy_audit_log; 'structured interceptor block/bypass rows' → sassy_audit_false_positives), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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