check_action

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool 'evaluates and audits.' It does not mention whether it is read-only, what side effects it may have, what inputs are expected, or what the output schema contains. This is a minimal, non-informative description that fails to convey behavior.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length but under-specified. It does not provide useful detail, so it is not effectively structured to aid an agent. The succinctness is not a virtue here because it omits essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the output should be interpreted. With only 2 parameters, no parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description is far from complete for safe and correct use.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'capability' parameter (required) or 'context' parameter at all. The agent receives no explanation of what values to supply for these parameters or what they mean, making correct invocation difficult.

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 uses the verbs 'evaluate and audit' with the object 'intended tool capability', which gives a general sense of verifying a capability. However, the phrase is vague and does not clearly define what 'capability' means or how it is audited, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like recent_decisions or verify_audit_chain. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate scenarios.

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