Register Claim Gate

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the tool operates in 'local runtime state' and does not edit 'tracked repo config', which clarifies the scope and side effects. However, it does not disclose persistence behavior or interactions with other gates.

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 with 14 words, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted content. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, destructive hint), the description adequately defines purpose and scope. However, it could mention the effect of registration (e.g., how the rule is used later) and return value. Still, it is largely complete for a focused 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond confirming they define a 'custom claim verification rule'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'register' and resource 'custom claim verification rule', and clearly states the scope 'in local runtime state without editing tracked repo config'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'verify_claim' (verifies) and 'satisfy_gate' (satisfies), as well as 'require_evidence_for_claim' (enforces).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for dynamic rule registration, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria. A clearer 'use this when...' would help.

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