Check (and if allowed, record) a proposed act against a covenant. Deny-by-default. Idempotent on act_id — retries never double-consume budget. Every check lands on the audit chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | ||
| act_id | Yes | ||
| covenant_id | Yes | ||
| amount_minor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: deny-by-default, idempotent on act_id (no double consumption), and every check lands on audit chain. Missing error or permission details, but sufficient for core behavior.
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?
Three sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description covers core behavior but omits parameter details and return format. Adequate for a check tool but with clear gaps in parameter documentation.
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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description does not explain any parameters beyond their titles. Parameter names like covenant_id and act_id are somewhat self-explanatory, but amount_minor and scope lack context. The description fails to add meaning to the schema.
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 action: 'Check (and if allowed, record) a proposed act against a covenant.' It specifies the verb (check/record) and the resource (act, covenant), distinguishing it from sibling tools like covenant_status or grant_covenant which handle different operations.
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 provides clear context with 'Deny-by-default' and idempotent behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, the sibling list implies there are other covenant tools, so the guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: granting, revoking, checking, listing, status, auditing, and self-description. No two tools overlap in function.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., grant_covenant, check_act), but covenant_status uses noun_noun, a minor inconsistency.
Seven tools cover the covenant lifecycle without bloat, fitting well within the 3-15 optimal range.
Core operations (grant, revoke, check, list, status, audit) are covered. Missing a dedicated tool to view a single covenant's details, but list_covenants and covenant_status likely suffice.