[Planned — not yet implemented on the remote endpoint, returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED] Ship Confidence Gate (Rule 42) dual-tier authorization is not yet built in this backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Human-readable label of the publish action (optional) | |
| artifact_id | Yes | The artifact being shipped (e.g. '@sunaiva/gate@1.1.0') | |
| command_preview | No | First 300 chars of the command that triggered the check (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is planned, not yet implemented, and specifically returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED. This is a precise and honest behavioral disclosure. However, it does not describe the intended behavior when/if implemented, which limits richness but does not contradict anything.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the critical fact (not implemented, returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED). It wastes no words and front-loads the most important information.
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 that this is a stub tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description is sufficient to inform an agent that the tool is unavailable. It clearly indicates the NOT_IMPLEMENTED response. The only missing element is guidance on what the intended check would do, but for a planned stub this is adequate.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'dual-tier authorization' but does not map that concept to the provided parameters (e.g., artifact_id, command_preview).
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 lacks a verb phrase; it states 'Ship Confidence Gate (Rule 42) dual-tier authorization is not yet built' but never says what the tool would do (e.g., 'checks' or 'authorizes'). It conveys that the feature is planned and unimplemented, so the actual purpose is implied by the name and context, not explicitly 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool. The description notes it is not implemented and returns NOT_IMPLEMENTED, which implicitly discourages use, but it does not suggest alternatives among siblings like 'validate_action' or 'audit_verify'. No clear use case or exclusion criteria are provided.
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.