aiworkhub_cli_adapter_audit_summary_readonly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it declares the tool never writes, never enables writes, never launches, and that env values never appear in entries so output is safe to log. What is missing is failure behavior (e.g., unknown repo) and how the entry limit truncates results.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and each following sentence earns its place by establishing a distinct safety guarantee. The reference to 'core.read_audit_log' and 'authority flags' is mildly implementation-facing but supports the read-only claim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety/loggability story is complete. However, for a tool that takes a repo selector and an entry cap, the absence of any parameter or scoping explanation leaves a real gap in the description's coverage.

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 for both parameters and does not: neither 'repo' nor 'max_entries' is mentioned. The only hint of limiting behavior is the schema default of 100, which the prose never explains.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Return a read-only summary') and a specific resource ('the write-gate audit log'), which distinguishes it from the launch-queue and task audit-log siblings by scope. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. With siblings like aiworkhub_launch_queue_audit_summary_readonly, aiworkhub_task_audit_log_read, and aiworkhub_cli_adapter_report_readonly in the catalog, the agent is left to guess which audit surface this covers based on the phrase 'write-gate' alone.

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