assess_and_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the workflow (assess, then if dangerous create ticket and await approval), and warns not to execute while pending/rejected. However, it does not describe the assessment criteria or the exact output format beyond 'approved/rejected'.

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, dense paragraph that conveys all essential information with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action: assess and gate.

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?

For a policy gate tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and constraints. It lacks details on return values and synchronization behavior, but is sufficient for guiding agent decisions.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'intent' (the user request) but does not explain 'action', 'params', 'requester', 'auto_create', or 'ttl_seconds' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool assesses risk and gates dangerous actions by creating a ticket and requesting approval. It uses specific verbs like 'assess risk' and 'create a ticket', and the distinction from siblings (which are query tools) is implicit but clear.

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 advises to 'Call BEFORE side effects' and 'Do NOT execute while pending/rejected', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also mentions a fallback, but does not explicitly list alternatives to this tool vs siblings.

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