GAIP Integration Repair Agent

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds a useful boundary by stating it will not patch or replay another operator's system, and hints at a write-side effect via 'retained receipt.' However, it does not explain side effects, authentication, or what 'retained' means.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and outcome are front-loaded, and the boundary statement is compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this two-sentence description is insufficient. An agent would still need to infer how to construct continuity_handle, choose task_class, or interpret the retained receipt.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely aligns 'supplied public handshake or task failure' with the failure and data_classification parameters. It provides no guidance on protocol, counterparty_id, task_class, continuity_handle, episode_id, synthetic, or independent_operator_id, leaving most of the 9 parameters unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: classify a supplied public handshake or task failure and return a bounded repair plan and retained receipt. This goes beyond the title and clarifies the deliverable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools by name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'No patch or replay of another operator's system' provides an exclusion, but the description never names alternative tools or conditions that should route an agent elsewhere.

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