Vet tools before attaching them

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by enumerating the three return states (block, review, no_blocking_finding) and explicitly bounding its own authority, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return contract. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 a one-parameter gate with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics and the scope boundary, which is what an agent most needs. The only gap is guidance on what each entry in the 'tools' array should contain, since the item schema is an untyped object.

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% for the single 'tools' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description restates 'proposed live tool list' without adding format, shape, or sizing guidance for the opaque array items.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('runs a scoped static pre-attachment gate over a proposed live tool list') with an explicit scope qualifier ('static', 'pre-attachment'). The closing clause 'never a runtime safety determination' implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_my_runtime, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'pre-attachment gate' makes the timing condition clear (invoke before attaching tools), and 'never a runtime safety determination' signals what this tool is not for. However, it never names scan_my_runtime or states an explicit exclusion, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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