register_claim_gate

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description clarifies it doesn't edit tracked config. However, it does not explain what 'local runtime state' means (e.g., persistence, scope, side effects). Some behavioral context is added, but not fully transparent.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words. Verb-first structure with no unnecessary words. Highly concise without losing essential purpose.

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?

No output schema and no mention of return value (e.g., confirmation, rule ID). Does not address idempotency or behavior on duplicate registration. For a registration tool, missing important operational details.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (claimPattern, requiredActions, message). The description does not add extra meaning beyond stating the local runtime context, so score is baseline 3.

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 action ('register'), the object ('custom claim verification rule'), and the scope ('in local runtime state without editing tracked repo config'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings that might modify persistent config.

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 use for temporary, local registration, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'verify_claim' and 'satisfy_gate' suggest different use cases, but no direct guidance is provided.

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