gate_tool_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning a signed decision, which is good, but it doesn't disclose key behaviors: what happens if the tool is denied, whether the tool call is executed, or any side effects. This is a policy gate, so agents need to know it might block actions.

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 concise, one clear sentence, and front-loaded with the purpose. It's efficient but could be slightly better organized with more detail on usage.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, policy gating, privileged calls), the description is thin. It doesn't cover return values (no output schema), side effects, or how the decision is signed. For a security-related tool, this is incomplete.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable but doesn't elevate the score.

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 tool evaluates a privileged agent tool call and returns allow/deny plus a signed decision, distinguishing it from attest_action and verify_action. However, it's a bit generic and could be more specific about the policy-gating aspect.

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 implies it's for privileged tool calls, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over attest_action or verify_action. The sibling names suggest attest_action is for attestation and verify_action for verification, but the description doesn't clarify the distinction.

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