audit_context

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'Return' implies a read, but there is no statement about auth/permission requirements, whether the audit_id must reference an open audit, freshness, or error behavior. The opaque 'PCH working-set support' phrase adds no usable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, which is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool. It is efficient even if the phrasing is jargon-dense.

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 spelled out, and it is only a one-parameter tool. Still, the description leaves the audit_id undefined and the enumerated concepts largely uninterpretable, so an agent has minimum-viable but incomplete footing.

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% and the description never mentions the single required audit_id parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap. It offers no format, source, or constraint guidance for the identifier.

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 specific verb (Return) and enumerates the resources surfaced (audit frontier, findings, assumptions, mutation boundary, PCH working-set), so the general purpose is discernible. However, the enumerated items are opaque domain jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like audit_status or audit_mutation_allowed.

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 indication of when to call this versus the many sibling audit tools (start_scoped_audit, audit_status, record_audit_finding, close_scoped_audit). No prerequisites, no alternatives, no triggering context are given.

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