audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It notes the tool outputs 'pretty-printed text' by default or JSON when requested, and implies it is non-destructive by calling it a 'report'. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only or mention 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 concise (four sentences) and well-structured: first sentence declares purpose, second enumerates contents, third gives format option, and fourth offers usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the simple schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format options and lists the report's contents. However, it does not specify the structure of the JSON output, which could be useful for programmatic consumption.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by restating the format parameter's default and output type ('Default returns pretty-printed text; pass {format: "json"} for structured output'), but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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 identifies the tool as an 'operational health report for the rule store' and lists specific data it surfaces (rule count by severity, stale rules, pattern conflicts, etc.), providing a precise verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_rules or save_rule.

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 suggests a usage cadence ('Run daily-ish') and mentions the report is fast, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stats or doctor, nor does it provide exclusions.

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