View recent gate decisions — blocks, warnings, passes, and bypasses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default 50) | |
| rule_id | No | Accepted for forward-compatibility but NOT applied server-side — the backend only honors limit/cursor. Filter the returned entries client-side. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns recent gate decisions, omitting key behaviors such as the ignored rule_id parameter, default limit behavior, or the shape of the returned data. The schema mentions the rule_id quirk, but the description itself adds no deeper behavioral context.
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 a single, concentrated sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, the description lacks details about the return format, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the limit default. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could be more complete, but it is minimally viable for a read-only log 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented. The description adds no extra parameter information, but the schema already explains the limit default and the misleading rule_id behavior. This aligns with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('recent gate decisions') and enumerates the decision types (blocks, warnings, passes, bypasses). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_bypass (which logs bypasses) and audit_verify (which likely verifies).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextualizing its use among the many sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., CRUD for custom rules, mode management, presets, validation). However, get_rules, list_custom_rules, and get_rule_modes could be confused since all return rule-related info, though descriptions differentiate their focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_custom_rule, get_audit_log, delete_custom_rule). Even multi-word names like ship_confidence_check maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 range but appropriate for the rule enforcement domain, covering custom rules, presets, modes, audit, and validation. However, three planned-but-unimplemented tools add clutter and could be confusing.
Core operations are present: full CRUD for custom rules, preset application, mode overrides, validation, and audit log. However, three tools are non-functional (NOT_IMPLEMENTED), and there is no way to remove a bypass or manage constitutional rules, leaving some noticeable gaps.