values-firewall

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: read-only with no side effects, advisory-only (never blocks/executes), most-restrictive-wins aggregation, fail-safe when Layer B is unavailable (recommendation lifted to at least 'flag'), rate limiting behavior, and error handling (rate_limited response). It also details the red-team-fix for empty action validation, which is highly transparent about edge cases.

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 long and dense, with multiple sections including a very specific RED-TEAM-FIX that is tangential to general tool usage. While it is structured in paragraphs, it lacks bullet points or clear separation of core vs. edge-case information, making it harder to parse quickly. Every sentence adds some behavioral detail, but the overall size is excessive for a tool selection scenario.

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 description is highly comprehensive for a tool with an output schema: it explains the returned receipt fields, recommendation values, rate-limiting errors, and fail-safe modes. However, it leaves a gap in parameter semantics (especially 'context') and does not fully describe what constitutes a valid 'action' string, which is a notable omission for practical use.

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 description provides minimal parameter meaning: it discusses 'action' only in the context of empty/whitespace validation, and does not explain what 'action' should contain or what 'context' is. Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by describing parameter semantics beyond that single edge case.

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's core function: a two-layer evaluation gate (deterministic + LLM) that produces a recommendation (allow/flag/gate_to_human) for an action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_action_deterministic by explicitly describing the dual-layer architecture and the advisory nature.

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 implies when to use the tool (e.g., when a full two-layer evaluation is needed, or when operating in PUBLIC_DEMO mode) and describes fail-safe behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_action_deterministic or list_charter. No explicit exclusion guidance is provided beyond mentioning different modes.

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 provided, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no LLM call, values_assessment always empty, values_assessment_unavailable always false, scope_note contains 'values_layer_consulted:false', and demo disclosures are appended in PUBLIC_DEMO-mode. This goes beyond minimal expectations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the key point (no LLM call). Some punctuation and capitalization are inconsistent, but every sentence contributes useful information without major redundancy.

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 detailed. The description covers the tool's deterministic nature, cost profile, and demo-mode behavior. However, it lacks an explicit high-level statement of what the 'check' actually evaluates, relying on knowledge of check_action and check_triple.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'action' or 'context' parameters. It only indirectly indicates that 'action' is the subject of the check and 'context' is optional. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.

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 states it is a deterministic, mechanical check with no LLM call, mirroring consistency-gates check_triple, and producing the same receipt form as check_action. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling check_action, though the core 'check' semantics are implied 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?

The description indicates this is the cheap, mechanical, read-only variant and mentions the PUBLIC_DEMO-mode as free and never rate-limited. It contrasts with check_action, implying check_action is for LLM-based assessment, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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 provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses values-locked behavior (only declared charter enforced), demo mode being open/free/never rate-limited, and the additive scope_note field. This goes far beyond basic description, fully compensating for missing annotations.

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 yet information-dense, using two focused paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, and the structure clearly separates general transparency from demo-mode specifics.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, demo vs default mode differences, and the scope_note addition. While an output schema exists, the supplementary context about demo disclosure and values-locked behavior makes the description highly complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-specific meaning to add, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs.

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 the current rules/principles enforced by the firewall, specifying the exact fields (name/version/hard_rules/outward_patterns/principles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_action/check_action_deterministic, which presumably test actions rather than list the charter.

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 conveys the tool is for transparency about the firewall's enforced charter, and explains the PUBLIC_DEMO-mode behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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