check_egress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that scanning is heuristic, defines the classification levels, explicitly states that RESTRICTED-class egress is blocked, and mentions the return of classification, retention info, and a receipt. This is substantial behavioral context, though it doesn't cover side effects or requirements.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Egress classification check') and then adds essential details about classification and blocking. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main workflow and outputs, and an output schema exists. However, missing semantics for destination and provider, plus unclear details about how blocking is enforced, leave gaps. The description is adequate but not complete for a security-related tool with three required parameters.

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 0%, and the description only implicitly references the 'data_sample' parameter. The required 'destination' and 'provider' parameters are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving two of three parameters ambiguous.

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's specific verb and resource: 'Egress classification check.' It then details exactly what it does: scans a data sample, classifies into four sensitivity levels, and blocks RESTRICTED-class egress. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_receipt and gate_decision, which focus on receipts or gates.

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 implied usage is when you need to classify a data sample before egress, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description mentions blocking RESTRICTED-class egress, giving some context, but does not say when not to use the tool.

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