sentinel_shield_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's risk-gating purpose but not its actual behavior: whether it blocks execution, returns a verdict, requires a follow-up approval (sibling sentinel_approve_escalation hints at a flow), or how it interacts with the pending command. Useful framing but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary constraint and the DO-NOT list clearly separated. Slightly dense with all-caps emphasis, but every clause earns its place by delineating the risk boundary.

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?

Covers the use/avoid decision well, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should explain what the inspection produces and what the caller does next (approval, escalation). The invocation gate is complete; the post-invocation picture is not.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents commandOrTool, context, and arguments, so the description need not repeat them. It adds nothing about parameter format or the 'approval fingerprint' semantics that the schema itself only mentions in passing. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('pre-flight safety inspection') and scopes it to HIGH-RISK destructive/irreversible operations with concrete examples (deletions, DB drops, remote scripts). An agent can immediately distinguish this from routine-operation siblings like sentinel_code_review.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (high-risk/destructive/irreversible ops) and when NOT to (reads, edits, git status/diff/log, package installs, build/test), with named counterexamples. This is the strongest part of the definition and leaves little to inference.

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