aegis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values ('risk level and approval requirement') and performance characteristics ('Quick', 'lighter'), but omits safety profile (read-only vs. logging), auth requirements, or error 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 tightly structured sentences plus Args block. First sentence establishes purpose, second contrasts with sibling and defines return contract, Args section covers parameters. Zero waste, front-loaded with key distinction.

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?

Tool has simple 2-param schema with output schema available. Description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, return summary, and parameter semantics. Complete for this complexity level despite lack of annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage (only titles). The Args section compensates by documenting both parameters: action_type as 'The kind of operation' and target as 'The system being acted upon'. Descriptions are concise but adequate given the simple string types.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'check' with resource 'risk' and scope 'action type + target combination'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'evaluate_action' by positioning itself as the 'lighter' alternative.

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?

Provides clear comparison to sibling 'evaluate_action' ('lighter than evaluate_action'), implicitly guiding when to use each based on depth needed. Lacks explicit 'when to use' phrasing (e.g., 'Use this for quick validation...'), but the differentiation is unambiguous.

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