influence_gate_report

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that this is a read-only status/view rather than a mutation, which is useful, and it summarizes the categories returned. However, it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, nor does it describe the output format or how 'gated' and 'earned' are determined beyond the labels.

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 compact and front-loads the core concept: poison/adversarial-integrity status. The second sentence reinforces the purpose without adding much bulk. Some jargon such as 'POISON' and 'slashed' is unexplained, but the text is not padded or repetitive.

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?

Given the low complexity of a zero-parameter status report, the description is reasonably complete: it names the domain, the categories covered, and the output perspective. It lacks an explicit statement about side effects and an exact return format, but as an at-a-glance report the conceptual scope is adequate for selecting and calling the tool.

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 the input schema contains all needed information. The description still provides meaningful context about what the report contains, which helps an agent interpret results even though no parameters need to be supplied.

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 deliverable: a status report on which memories are gated from influencing recall durability versus earned. The terms self-asserted / uncorroborated / slashed give concrete categories, and the phrase 'at-a-glance view' clarifies it is a summary report. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling report tools, but the poison/adversarial-integrity focus is distinctive enough.

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 the use case: checking the store's poison-resistance state at a glance. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling reports such as governance_report, compliance_report, or supersession_report, and it does not mention when not to use it.

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