run_exit_drill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Informational -- no side effects,' which is a strong guarantee. It also discloses that it performs checks and returns a receipt, covering the key behavioral aspects for a zero-parameter tool.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and follow with the return value and side-effect profile. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 purpose, the specific checks performed, the output format, and the side-effect guarantee. With an output schema defined and zero parameters, this is a complete description for the tool's complexity level.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by naming exactly what will be checked, which enhances understanding even though there are no input parameters to explain.

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 purpose as a 'Vendor exit readiness drill' and lists specific checks ('local signing key', 'local model access (Ollama)', 'local data export capability'). It also specifies the return value ('step-by-step results and a tamper-evident receipt'), making it distinct from sibling tools like verify_receipt or check_egress.

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 'Vendor exit readiness drill' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for pre-exit assessment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, which prevents a score of 5.

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