inspect_authority_separation_json

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. The phrase 'without authorizing action' implies that the inspection does not perform an authorization, hinting at a non-mutating read-only check. However, it does not disclose the absence of state changes, the possibility of side effects, error conditions, or what the returned result indicates. For a tool lacking the safety hints of annotations, this is a substantial gap.

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, consisting of a single sentence that fits the length requirement. However, the sentence structure is as awkward as it is hard to parse—'crossing roles are separately declared without trusting action' forces multiple reads to deduce what the tool actually offers. The key purpose should have been front-loaded and phrased more directly, e.g., 'Verifies that separate role declarations exist and that no approval action is taken' for better clarity.

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?

Although an output schema is present, it is not provided in the context, so the description must explain the expected input and return meaning. It explains the purpose by a vague question, but does not introduce the initial parameters' content, whether it returns a boolean, alerts, or a detailed analysis, or anything about edge cases such as invalid JSON input. Given the single-parameter simplicity, a complete description should mention the input expectation and the most prominent result, but it does neither.

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 input schema defines a single required parameter, crossing_json, with type string, but the schema provides zero description. The tool description itself does not mention crossing_json at all, nor does it explain what data the parameter should contain, what format it should be in, or how it maps to the inspection. With 0% schema coverage and no extra detail, an agent has no way to compose a correct value for this parameter.

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 names the verb 'inspect' and states the intrinsic resource: whether crossing roles are separately declared. This gives a clear sense of the high-level purpose, but it is vague; the term 'crossing roles' is never defined, and it does not differentiate the inspection from the sibling 'review' tools beyond a superficial verb difference. The name 'inspect_authority_separation_json' suggests a read-only check, but the description does not explicitly say it inspects the correctness of role separation or what the output indicates.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, nor does it state criteria such as 'use when you need to verify role separation without expectation of mutation' or 'use if other review tools are insufficient'. An agent cannot tell whether this tool is appropriate for a given situation because no decision rule is provided.

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