venom_propose_exemption

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states that the action is always recorded as proposed and only the operator can approve it in the CLI, which is crucial behavioral context. It doesn't cover permissions or side effects beyond that, but the core workflow constraint is clear.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The parameter list is terse and efficient, though the formatting (Args block) is slightly verbose for a short description.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it explains the core mechanism (proposal only, operator approval) but leaves parameter details sparse. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but input semantics remain thin.

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%, so the description must compensate. It briefly lists the parameters (agent, scope, reason, tool, workspace) with minimal explanation, but doesn't clarify formats, constraints, or the special case of agent="*" with scope="tool" beyond a terse note. Most parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: proposing an exemption for an agent or tool from guarding. It also hints at the two scopes and the approval restriction, making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the proposal-specific nature is evident from the name and description.

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 when to use (when you believe an agent or tool should be exempt from guarding) but does not compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like venom_policy_context or explain_policy might be relevant, but no routing guidance is given.

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