Unattended-surface parity probe

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context — the first probe per operator is free and subsequent probes cost $4.99 via x402 — which is a real cost/rate-limit disclosure. However, it says nothing about what the probe executes, whether it mutates anything, or what happens on failure.

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, and the cost caveat is appropriately parenthetical. The only inefficiency is that 'unattended surface' consumes words without conveying meaning.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the bar is low, and the cost model is disclosed. Still, an agent cannot tell what a 'parity fixture' or 'unattended surface' actually returns, which matters given no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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 verb (Run) and a resource (the parity fixture), which is better than tautology, but 'unattended surface' is unexplained jargon and the description gives no signal about how this differs from sibling tools parity_verdict or pre_run.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus parity_verdict or pre_run, nor any prerequisites. The pricing clause implies a deliberate/paid action but doesn't translate into selection guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a cost signal ('$0.01 x402'), which is useful, but it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how payment is handled, whether the verdict is cached or generated on demand, or what signing/verification implies.

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 definition is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Jargon such as 'x402' and 'precomputed signed verdict' is packed in without enough context for an agent to act confidently.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is not complete enough. An agent still lacks the verdict's contents, the meaning of 'signed', payment mechanics, task_id requirements, and how this tool relates to its siblings.

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% for the single task_id parameter, and the description only implies 'for a task' without explaining format, whether it is truly required (schema marks zero required parameters), or what happens if omitted. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 phrase 'Precomputed signed verdict for a task' does identify a resource (a verdict) and a qualifier (precomputed, signed), so the general purpose is inferable. But it is a noun phrase rather than a clear action, and 'x402' plus 'precomputed' are ambiguous, with no explicit differentiation from parity_probe beyond an implied retrieval-vs-computation distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. 'Precomputed' weakly implies using this instead of computing a fresh result via parity_probe, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal one meaningful side effect — on failure a draft is queued — but says nothing about idempotency, whether that draft is persisted/email/queue item, permission requirements, or the return payload.

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?

One compact line, front-loaded with the role, with no filler. However the compression goes too far — 'PARITY' and 'draft queued' are compressed into undefined shorthand, making the line cryptic rather than efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics; it only vaguely gestures at GO/NO-GO and an artifact on failure. It omits what 'valid PARITY' means, what the draft contains, and where it goes — significant gaps for a gating tool whose decision drives downstream scheduling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it does not waste words inventing any.

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?

It names a specific role ('Scheduler gate') and the two outcomes (GO / NO-GO plus a queued draft), which is more than a tautology. But 'PARITY' is an undefined term and there is no explicit differentiation from the siblings parity_probe and parity_verdict, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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 statement of when to use this gate versus parity_probe or parity_verdict, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether a probe must run first). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Scheduler gate'.

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