run_guardrail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by enumerating the six gates executed and the condition for approval ('all gates pass'). It does not specify failure behavior (e.g., which gate failed), but the gate list and binary outcome are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentences deliver the essential purpose, scope, gates, and return condition with zero redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 an 8-parameter guardrail tool with no output schema, the description covers the core output (approved true/false) and the gate logic. It omits error handling or partial failure details, but given the tool's straightforward check-and-report nature, the description is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 88%, high, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no per-parameter details beyond listing gate names. According to guidelines, baseline is 3, and with no additional semantic contribution, this score is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a pre-flight guardrail middleware chain executed before orders, specifies the six gates (VIX, daily-loss, etc.), and states the binary output (approved=true/false). This distinguishes it from sibling safety-check tools like 'check_order_safety' by framing it as a comprehensive middleware chain.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Wire this before every order execution,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not list when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of siblings (many check functions) implies this is the recommended pre-order gate; the lack of exclusions is a minor gap.

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