vaibot_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a read-only listing operation and shows the kinds of decisions it reports (allow, deny, pending). However, it does not disclose details like whether the list is ordered, what 'recent' means, or whether there are any rate limits or auth requirements. While the 'list' verb implies non-destructiveness, it is not explicitly stated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main action ('List recent governance receipts') and then explaining the use case. It contains no redundant words or irrelevant details, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is straightforward: listing receipts with optional filters and no output schema. The description explains what the receipts contain (allowed/denied/pending actions) and the scope (current agent), which is sufficient for most use cases. It could be more complete by detailing the response structure, but given the simple nature of the tool and the well-documented filters, it is adequately complete.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, each with clear descriptions and enums where applicable. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is sufficient. The description's mention of 'recent' and 'governance' provides context that aligns with the parameters, but the heavy lifting is done by the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 lists governance receipts for the current agent, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('governance receipts'). It also specifies the purpose (reviewing allowed, denied, or pending actions), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that perform actions (vaibot_decide, vaibot_finalize, vaibot_approve) rather than read receipts.

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 explicitly says 'Use to review what actions were allowed, denied, or are pending approval,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the read-only nature of receipts make the usage context clear and unambiguous.

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